mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
To: John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Derek Barbosa <debarbos@redhat.com>,
	printk@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Sashiko <sashiko-bot@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH printk v2] printk: Avoid multiple unregistration in unregister_console_locked()
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2026 17:41:52 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <auTI0Dv01budMJv0@pathway> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261030135802.663893-1-john.ogness@linutronix.de>

On Fri 2026-10-30 15:03:55, John Ogness wrote:
> unregister_console_locked() is called from within
> hlist_for_each_entry_safe(console_list) loops. This would be safe if
> unregister_console_locked() only unregistered the specified console. After
> all, that is what the _safe variant is for.
> 
> However, unregister_console_locked() calls printk_kthreads_check_locked(),
> which can unregister _multiple_ consoles if kthreads fail to start. This
> could lead to hlist_for_each_entry_safe() use-after-free scenarios because
> not only was the list entry removed, but possibly the following entry as
> well (the @n temporary storage of the next entry).
> 
> Move the call to printk_kthreads_check_locked() outside of
> unregister_console_locked(). Add comments to both functions to clarify
> if they are safe to be used in hlist_for_each_entry_safe(console_list)
> loops.
> 
> Reported-by: Sashiko <sashiko-bot@kernel.org>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/87ik31iz4x.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de
> Fixes: 76f258bf3f2a ("printk: nbcon: Introduce printer kthreads")
> Signed-off-by: John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>

Looks good to me:

Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>

Now, I am not sure whether to queue this for 7.4-rc2 or 7.5.
One one hand, it is a potential use-after free. On the other hand,
it is rather a corner case which is hard to hit. And it would likely
happen during boot where it is not that dangerous.

Well, I am rather confident with the fix now. So I personally
prefer 7.4-rc2 to be on the safe side sooner. And there are
already two more changes in the queue for 7.4-rc2 anyway.

Best Regards,
Petr

  reply	other threads:[~2026-10-30 16:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-10-30 13:57 John Ogness
2026-10-30 16:41 ` Petr Mladek [this message]
2026-10-30 19:48 ` Derek Barbosa

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=auTI0Dv01budMJv0@pathway \
    --to=pmladek@suse.com \
    --cc=debarbos@redhat.com \
    --cc=john.ogness@linutronix.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=printk@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
    --cc=senozhatsky@chromium.org \
    /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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®