Skip to contentSkip to conversation

kernel: bug fixing for kernel/kmod.c

PATCH In review Kenneth Lee 2 participants 3 messages Aug 2, 2006 – Aug 3, 2006

lore
Share & tools
lore
#0 lore raw

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.

Normally wait_for_helper() take a long time to finish, you may not get problem for most of the case. But if you remove /sbin/modprobe, it may become easier for you to get a oop in khelper.

the following patch is made in 2.6.17.7

--- linux-2.6.17.7/kernel/kmod.c.orig 2006-08-02 22:13:21.805902750
+0800
+++ linux-2.6.17.7/kernel/kmod.c 2006-08-02 22:15:36.946348500
+0800
@@ -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);

}

#1 lore raw

Mr. Rusty Russell's mail server reject my mail. Anybody can tell me where I should deliver the patch?

Quoted 35 lines · Kenneth Lee

Subject: [Patch] 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.

Normally wait_for_helper() take a long time to finish, you may not get problem for most of the case. But if you remove /sbin/modprobe, it may become easier for you to get a oop in khelper.

the following patch is made in 2.6.17.7

--- linux-2.6.17.7/kernel/kmod.c.orig 2006-08-02 22:13:21.805902750
+0800
+++ linux-2.6.17.7/kernel/kmod.c 2006-08-02 22:15:36.946348500
+0800

(quoted diff) +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);
 }
 
#2 lore raw
In reply to Kenneth Lee
Quoted 24 lines · Kenneth Lee

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.

Normally wait_for_helper() take a long time to finish, you may not get problem for most of the case. But if you remove /sbin/modprobe, it may become easier for you to get a oop in khelper.

the following patch is made in 2.6.17.7

--- linux-2.6.17.7/kernel/kmod.c.orig 2006-08-02 22:13:21.805902750
+0800
+++ linux-2.6.17.7/kernel/kmod.c 2006-08-02 22:15:36.946348500
+0800

(quoted diff) +1 -0
@@ -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

Review static void __call_usermodehelper(void * · line 219

Quoted 8 lines
(quoted diff) +1 -1
@@ -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);
 }
 

Looks like a correct fix for the race to me. I think you'd make the code slightly easier to read by replacing the initial test too:

if (sub_info->wait)

	pid = kernel_thread(...

with:

if (wait)

	pid = kernel_thread(...

Cheers,
-Matt Helsley