kernel: bug fixing for kernel/kmod.c
PATCH 1/1 kernel: bug fixing for kernel/kmod.c
I think there is a bug in kmod.c. In __call_usermodehelper(), when kernel_thread(wait_for_helper, ...) return success, since wait_for_helper() might call complete() at any time, the sub_info should not be used any more.
the following patch is made in 2.6.17.7
tmp/kmod.c 2006-08-02 01:01:42.702054000 +0800 renamed from kmod.c 2006-07-25 11:36:01.000000000 +0800 +2 -1
@@ -198,6 +198,7 @@ static void __call_usermodehelper(void * { struct subprocess_info *sub_info = data; pid_t pid; + int wait = sub_info->wait; /* CLONE_VFORK: wait until the usermode helper has execve'd * successfully We need the data structures to stay around
@@ -212,7 +213,7 @@ static void __call_usermodehelper(void * if (pid < 0) { sub_info->retval = pid; complete(sub_info->complete); - } else if (!sub_info->wait) + } else if (!wait) complete(sub_info->complete); }
Quoted 4 lines · kenny
I think there is a bug in
kmod.c. In__call_usermodehelper(), whenkernel_thread(wait_for_helper, ...)return success, sincewait_for_helper()might callcomplete()at any time, thesub_infoshould not be used any more.
Good catch!
The sub_info is on the stack of call_usermodehelper_keys and with wait set, the wait_for_helper is called as a thread and does the complete and there is a chance that the call_usermodehelper_keys will return and use its stack for something else, before the helper finishes, making the wait not valid anymore, and worst, using a bad complete.
On a normal case, the wait_for_helper will call something in userland and this would most likely allow the caller to finish with a correct wait. But still this in incorrect code, since there can definitely be a race here.
OK, now on submitting a patch :-)
1. read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
2. Linus will probably not even read this (although he might). So try to find a maintainer. And even on this file you see at the top:
call_usermodehelper wait flag, and remove exec_usermodehelper. Rusty Russell <[email protected]> Jan 2003
Which means that Rusty was probably the one who wrote the code.
3. Use a -p1 patch format to submit. IOW the files to compare against should have been a/kernel/kmod.c and not /tmp/kmod.c.
If you want a cool tool for making patches get quilt:
http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/quilt
4. sign off your work by adding a "Signed-off-by: Full name <email@address>"
So please, fix up your patch and send it again properly :)
-- Steve
Quoted 21 lines
the following patch is made in 2.6.17.7
tmp/kmod.c 2006-08-02 01:01:42.702054000 +0800 renamed from kmod.c 2006-07-25 11:36:01.000000000 +0800 +2
-1@@ -198,6 +198,7 @@ static void __call_usermodehelper(void * { struct subprocess_info *sub_info = data; pid_t pid; + int wait = sub_info->wait; /* CLONE_VFORK: wait until the usermode helper has execve'd * successfully We need the data structures to stay around@@ -212,7 +213,7 @@ static void __call_usermodehelper(void * if (pid < 0) { sub_info->retval = pid; complete(sub_info->complete); - } else if (!sub_info->wait) + } else if (!wait) complete(sub_info->complete); }