From: "Jun'ichi Nomura" <j-nomura@ce.jp.nec.com>
To: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
Cc: dm-devel@redhat.com, "Alasdair G. Kergon" <agk@redhat.com>,
James Bottomley <jbottomley@parallels.com>,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: dm-mpath: Clear map_context pointer when requeuing
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:49:33 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4EDCA1BD.1000708@ce.jp.nec.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4ED8FA8F.20109@suse.de>
Hi Hannes,
On 12/03/11 01:19, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>>>> When requeing a request we should be clearing the map_context
>>>> pointer, otherwise we might access an invalid memory location.
>>
>> Could you elaborate on the mechanism how the map_context->ptr
>> (= mpio) is accessed after freeing it?
>>
> In short: No. Pure guesswork :-)
Guesswork is OK :)
But..
> The longer answer here is that 'map_context' is managed by the
> caller for multipath_map().
> So in theory the caller is free to re-use the map_context whenever
> 'clone' is in use.
> So if 'clone' is terminated when it's still requeued the caller
> might be calling multipath_end_io(), at which point map_context->ptr
> will be pointing to an invalid memory location.
With that logic, 'map_context->ptr = NULL' would just replace
the invalid memory access by NULL pointer dereference,
because there is no NULL-check for map_context->ptr.
Right?
> But as I said, this is not a detailed analysis. It's good enough
> for me that it solves the problem :-)
>
>> mpio is known to be non-NULL where it is used. So clearing the pointer
>> should not make any difference in logic.
>>
> It does, see above.
>
>> If this is a preventive change so that we can see NULL dereference
>> instead of random invalid access if anything happens, it should be
>> noted in the patch description and in the code.
>> Otherwise, somebody looking at the code/change in future might be
>> confused: "why we have to clear this pointer?"
>>
>> And there are other places where mpio is freed.
>> (E.g. in dispatch_queued_ios() in dm-mpath.c)
>> Don't we need the same change there?
>>
> I don't think so. It's just from multipath_map() where we need to
> ensure map_context->ptr is correct. All the other places will not
> touch the map_context->ptr again.
For DM_MAPIO_REQUEUE, both multipath_map() and dispatch_queued_ios()
end up with dm_requeue_unmapped_request().
What is the difference?
Thanks,
--
Jun'ichi Nomura, NEC Corporation
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-12-05 10:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1322663118-53387-1-git-send-email-hare@suse.de>
2011-11-30 14:49 ` dm-mpath: Clear map_context pointer when requeuing Mike Snitzer
2011-12-01 0:12 ` Jun'ichi Nomura
2011-12-02 16:19 ` Hannes Reinecke
2011-12-05 10:49 ` Jun'ichi Nomura [this message]
2011-12-05 16:23 ` Hannes Reinecke
2011-12-06 4:44 ` Jun'ichi Nomura
2012-03-19 15:00 ` [dm-devel] " Alasdair G Kergon
2011-12-05 14:15 ` [dm-devel] [PATCH] " Dave Wysochanski
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4EDCA1BD.1000708@ce.jp.nec.com \
--to=j-nomura@ce.jp.nec.com \
--cc=agk@redhat.com \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=jbottomley@parallels.com \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=snitzer@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox