| Message ID | 2929034.1705508082@warthog.procyon.org.uk (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | afs: Fix missing/incorrect unlocking of RCU read lock | expand |
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote: > In afs_proc_addr_prefs_show(), we need to unlock the RCU read lock in both > places before returning (and not lock it again). > > Fixes: f94f70d39cc2 ("afs: Provide a way to configure address priorities") > Reported-by: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> Actually: Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202401172243.cd53d5f6-oliver.sang@intel.com > Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> > cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org > cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org David
On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 12:21 PM David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote: > > David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote: > > > In afs_proc_addr_prefs_show(), we need to unlock the RCU read lock in both > > places before returning (and not lock it again). > > > > Fixes: f94f70d39cc2 ("afs: Provide a way to configure address priorities") > > Reported-by: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> > > Actually: > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com> > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202401172243.cd53d5f6-oliver.sang@intel.com > > Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> > > cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org > > cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org > > David The fix looks fine. Reviewed-by: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> Marc
> 2024年1月18日 00:14，David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> 写道： > > In afs_proc_addr_prefs_show(), we need to unlock the RCU read lock in both > places before returning (and not lock it again). > > Fixes: f94f70d39cc2 ("afs: Provide a way to configure address priorities") > Reported-by: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> > Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> > cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org > cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org > --- > fs/afs/proc.c | 5 +++-- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/afs/proc.c b/fs/afs/proc.c > index 3bd02571f30d..15eab053af6d 100644 > --- a/fs/afs/proc.c > +++ b/fs/afs/proc.c > @@ -166,7 +166,7 @@ static int afs_proc_addr_prefs_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v) > > if (!preflist) { > seq_puts(m, "NO PREFS\n"); > - return 0; > + goto out; > } > > seq_printf(m, "PROT SUBNET PRIOR (v=%u n=%u/%u/%u)\n", > @@ -191,7 +191,8 @@ static int afs_proc_addr_prefs_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v) > } > } > > - rcu_read_lock(); > +out: > + rcu_read_unlock(); What about using: guard(rcu)(); Thanks, Alan > return 0; > } > >
diff --git a/fs/afs/proc.c b/fs/afs/proc.c index 3bd02571f30d..15eab053af6d 100644 --- a/fs/afs/proc.c +++ b/fs/afs/proc.c @@ -166,7 +166,7 @@ static int afs_proc_addr_prefs_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v) if (!preflist) { seq_puts(m, "NO PREFS\n"); - return 0; + goto out; } seq_printf(m, "PROT SUBNET PRIOR (v=%u n=%u/%u/%u)\n", @@ -191,7 +191,8 @@ static int afs_proc_addr_prefs_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v) } } - rcu_read_lock(); +out: + rcu_read_unlock(); return 0; }
In afs_proc_addr_prefs_show(), we need to unlock the RCU read lock in both places before returning (and not lock it again). Fixes: f94f70d39cc2 ("afs: Provide a way to configure address priorities") Reported-by: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org --- fs/afs/proc.c | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)