Re: 3.6rc6 slab corruption.

[Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On 09/19/2012 01:54 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/fs/debugfs/file.c b/fs/debugfs/file.c
>> index 2340f69..309b235 100644
>> --- a/fs/debugfs/file.c
>> +++ b/fs/debugfs/file.c
>> @@ -524,6 +524,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(debugfs_create_blob);
>>   struct array_data {
>>   	void *array;
>>   	u32 elements;
>> +	struct mutex lock;
>
> This should be a spinlock.


I remember we used debugfs because traceprintks used spinlock.
The code was being accessed from paravirt spinlock.

Sorry for joining late (Time Zone difference)
CCing Jeremy

>
>>   };
>>
>>   static int u32_array_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
>> @@ -580,6 +581,7 @@ static ssize_t u32_array_read(struct file *file, char __user *buf, size_t len,
>>   	struct array_data *data = inode->i_private;
>>   	size_t size;
>>
>> +	mutex_lock(&data->lock);
>>   	if (*ppos == 0) {
>>   		if (file->private_data) {
>>   			kfree(file->private_data);
>> @@ -594,6 +596,7 @@ static ssize_t u32_array_read(struct file *file, char __user *buf, size_t len,
>>   	if (file->private_data)
>>   		size = strlen(file->private_data);
>>
>> +	mutex_unlock(&data->lock);
>>   	return simple_read_from_buffer(buf, len, ppos,
>>   					file->private_data, size);
>>   }
>
> Your critical section isn't entirely covered since you're still accessing
> file->private_data in the call to simple_read_from_buffer().  What happens
> if a concurrent reader does file->private_data = NULL immediately after
> your unlock?
>
>