lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [Question] null pointer risk of kernel workqueue
From
Date


On 2017/9/25 23:25, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 05:04:24PM +0800, tanxiaofei wrote:
>> Hi Tejun & Jiangshan,
>>
>> I find an null pointer risk in the code of workqueue. Here is description:
>>
>> If draining, __queue_work() will call the function is_chained_work() to do some checks.
>> In is_chained_work(), worker->current_pwq is used directly. It should be not safe.
>> http://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/latest/source/kernel/workqueue.c#L1384
>>
>> If you check the thread function of this worker, worker_thread(), you will find worker->current_pwq
>> is null when one work is done or ready to be processed.
>> This issue may happen only if we queue work during executing drain_workqueue().
>> http://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/latest/source/kernel/workqueue.c#L2173
>
> Hmmm? I don't get it. worker->current_pwq is guaranteed to be set
> while a work function is being executed and the chained check can only
> get there iff the the worker is executing a work function.
>

Hi Tejun,

Thanks for your quick reply.
Hmm, but i think interrupt preemption could make this happen.
For example, the scenario that all following conditions are met.
1.The handler of an interrupt call queue_work() to queue some works, and the workqueue is draining.
2.An worker thread is interrupted by this interrupt.
3.The worker thread is being executed, and at the very moment,worker->current_pwq
is set to null.(This is possible and please check function worker_thread() carefully).

Thanks.




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-27 11:18    [W:0.096 / U:1.564 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site