Toshiaki Makita <toshiaki.makita1@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 19/06/14 (金) 21:10:38, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> Toshiaki Makita <toshiaki.makita1@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>
>>>> dev_map_free() waits for flush_needed bitmap to be empty in order to
>>>> ensure all flush operations have completed before freeing its entries.
>>>> However the corresponding clear_bit() was called before using the
>>>> entries, so the entries could be used after free.
>>>>
>>>> All access to the entries needs to be done before clearing the bit.
>>>> It seems commit a5e2da6e9787 ("bpf: netdev is never null in
>>>> __dev_map_flush") accidentally changed the clear_bit() and memory access
>>>> order.
>>>>
>>>> Note that the problem happens only in __dev_map_flush(), not in
>>>> dev_map_flush_old(). dev_map_flush_old() is called only after nulling
>>>> out the corresponding netdev_map entry, so dev_map_free() never frees
>>>> the entry thus no such race happens there.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: a5e2da6e9787 ("bpf: netdev is never null in __dev_map_flush")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Toshiaki Makita <toshiaki.makita1@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> I recently posted a patch[0] that gets rid of the bitmap entirely, so I
>>> think you can drop this one...
>>
>> Alternatively, since this entire series should probably go to stable, I
>> can respin mine on top of it?
>
> Indeed conflict will happen, as this is for 'bpf' not 'bpf-next'.
> Sorry for disturbing your work.
Oh, no worries!
> I'm also not sure how to proceed in this case.
I guess we'll leave that up to the maintainers :)
-Toke
|