Re: [PATCH] net, cgroup: Fix boot failure due to iteration of uninitialized list

On 09/10/2012 06:46 PM, Neil Horman wrote:

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 02:59:18PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:

quoted

On 07/23/2012 05:10 PM, Neil Horman wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 09:15:05AM +0800, Gao feng wrote:

quoted

于 2012年07月20日 00:27, Srivatsa S. Bhat 写道:

quoted

After commit ef209f15 (net: cgroup: fix access the unallocated memory in
netprio cgroup), boot fails with the following NULL pointer dereference:

[...]

quoted

quoted

quoted

Call Trace:
 [<ffffffff81b1cb78>] cgroup_init_subsys+0x83/0x169
 [<ffffffff81b1ce13>] cgroup_init+0x36/0x119
 [<ffffffff81affef7>] start_kernel+0x3ba/0x3ef
 [<ffffffff81aff95b>] ? kernel_init+0x27b/0x27b
 [<ffffffff81aff356>] x86_64_start_reservations+0x131/0x136
 [<ffffffff81aff45e>] x86_64_start_kernel+0x103/0x112
RIP  [<ffffffff8145e8d6>] cgrp_create+0xf6/0x190
 RSP <ffffffff81a01ea8>
CR2: 0000000000000698
---[ end trace a7919e7f17c0a725 ]---
Kernel panic - not syncing: Attempted to kill the idle task!

The code corresponds to:

update_netdev_tables():
        for_each_netdev(&init_net, dev) {
                map = rtnl_dereference(dev->priomap);  <---- HERE


The list head is initialized in netdev_init(), which is called much
later than cgrp_create(). So the problem is that we are calling
update_netdev_tables() way too early (in cgrp_create()), which will
end up traversing the not-yet-circular linked list. So at some point,
the dev pointer will become NULL and hence dev->priomap becomes an
invalid access.

To fix this, just remove the update_netdev_tables() function entirely,
since it appears that write_update_netdev_table() will handle things
just fine.

The reason I add update_netdev_tables in cgrp_create is to avoid additional
bound checkings when we accessing the dev->priomap.priomap.

Eric,can we revert this commit 91c68ce2b26319248a32d7baa1226f819d283758 now?
I think it's safe enough to access priomap without bound check.

I think its probably safe, yes, but lets leave it there for just a bit.  Its not
hurting anything, and I'd like to look into getting Srivatsa' patch in first.

Hi Neil,

Did you get around to look into this again?

I haven't looked at it specifically no, I apologize.  That said I think the
other changes that went in back in that time frame have had time to soak, and
looking at the way we current update the priomap table, I think its safe for us
to remove the update_netdev_table call and definition.  If you repost your
patch, I'll ack it. 

Cool! I'll repost the patch, along with another small improvement that I happened
to observe, as a separate patch. Thanks!

Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat