From: Dmitry Antipov <redacted>
[ Upstream commit d5c4546062fd6f5dbce575c7ea52ad66d1968678 ]
According to Vinicius (and carefully looking through the whole
https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=b65e0af58423fc8a73aa
once again), txtime branch of 'taprio_change()' is not going to
race against 'advance_sched()'. But using 'rcu_replace_pointer()'
in the former may be a good idea as well.
Suggested-by: Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Antipov <redacted>
Acked-by: Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
---
net/sched/sch_taprio.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/net/sched/sch_taprio.c b/net/sched/sch_taprio.c
index 418d4a846d04a..87090d6790362 100644
--- a/net/sched/sch_taprio.c
+++ b/net/sched/sch_taprio.c
@@ -1975,7 +1975,9 @@ static int taprio_change(struct Qdisc *sch, struct nlattr *opt,
goto unlock;
}
- rcu_assign_pointer(q->admin_sched, new_admin);
+ /* Not going to race against advance_sched(), but still */
+ admin = rcu_replace_pointer(q->admin_sched, new_admin,
+ lockdep_rtnl_is_held());
if (admin)
call_rcu(&admin->rcu, taprio_free_sched_cb);
} else {--
2.43.0