[Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 1/2] fs/ocfs2/dlm: Eliminate update of list_for_each_entry loop cursor

[Sunil Mushran]

I think it got lost in the shuffle. We had decided to use the list_for_each().
The code is simpler to understand than the other proposed fix.

Joel, do you want me to send a patch?

On 11/02/2011 12:39 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> What ever happened with this?  The bug is still there in the latest
> kernel.
>
> I think from previous discussion about this that we only ever have
> one lock so lock->ml.cookie is always equal to ml->cookie and we
> never set lock to NULL.  So we never actually hit the NULL deref.
> But it should probably still be cleaned up.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 05:03:56PM -0700, Joel Becker wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 11:09:13AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
>>> From: Julia Lawall<julia at diku.dk>
>>>
>>> list_for_each_entry uses its first argument to move from one element to the
>>> next, so modifying it can break the iteration.
>> 	Thanks for catching the bug.  It was introduced by 800deef3
>> [ocfs2: use list_for_each_entry where benefical].  I blame Christoph.
>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c
>>> index 9dfaac7..7084a11 100644
>>> --- a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c
>>> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c
>>> @@ -1792,10 +1792,10 @@ static int dlm_process_recovery_data(struct dlm_ctxt *dlm,
>>>   			for (j = DLM_GRANTED_LIST; j<= DLM_BLOCKED_LIST; j++) {
>>>   				tmpq = dlm_list_idx_to_ptr(res, j);
>>>   				list_for_each_entry(lock, tmpq, list) {
>>> -					if (lock->ml.cookie != ml->cookie)
>>> +					if (lock->ml.cookie != ml->cookie) {
>>>   						lock = NULL;
>>> -					else
>>>   						break;
>>> +					}
>>>   				}
>>>   				if (lock)
>>>   					break;
>> 	However, this is not the correct solution.  The goal of the
>> original code, which used to use list_for_each(), was to leave lock
>> non-NULL if the cookie was found.  Your version merely exits the loop on
>> the first non-matching entry, always leaving lock==NULL if there is a
>> non-matching entry.
>> 	One possible solution is to return the original code:
>>
>> --8<-----------------------------------------------------------------
>> @@ -1747,7 +1747,7 @@ static int dlm_process_recovery_data(struct dlm_ctxt *dlm,
>>   				     struct dlm_migratable_lockres *mres)
>>   {
>>   	struct dlm_migratable_lock *ml;
>> -	struct list_head *queue;
>> +	struct list_head *queue, *iter;
>>   	struct list_head *tmpq = NULL;
>>   	struct dlm_lock *newlock = NULL;
>>   	struct dlm_lockstatus *lksb = NULL;
>> @@ -1791,11 +1791,12 @@ static int dlm_process_recovery_data(struct dlm_ctxt *dlm,
>>   			spin_lock(&res->spinlock);
>>   			for (j = DLM_GRANTED_LIST; j<= DLM_BLOCKED_LIST; j++) {
>>   				tmpq = dlm_list_idx_to_ptr(res, j);
>> -				list_for_each_entry(lock, tmpq, list) {
>> -					if (lock->ml.cookie != ml->cookie)
>> -						lock = NULL;
>> -					else
>> +				list_for_each(iter, tmpq) {
>> +					lock = list_entry(iter, struct dlm_lock, list);
>> +
>> +					if (lock->ml.cookie == ml->cookie)
>>   						break;
>> +					lock = NULL;
>>   				}
>>   				if (lock)
>>   					break;
>> -->8-----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> 	Another approach would be to keep list_for_each_entry() around,
>> but use a better check for entry existence:
>>
>> --8<-----------------------------------------------------------------
>> @@ -1792,13 +1792,12 @@ static int dlm_process_recovery_data(struct dlm_ctxt *dlm,
>>   			for (j = DLM_GRANTED_LIST; j<= DLM_BLOCKED_LIST; j++) {
>>   				tmpq = dlm_list_idx_to_ptr(res, j);
>>   				list_for_each_entry(lock, tmpq, list) {
>> -					if (lock->ml.cookie != ml->cookie)
>> -						lock = NULL;
>> -					else
>> +					if (lock->ml.cookie == ml->cookie)
>>   						break;
>>   				}
>> -				if (lock)
>> +				if (&lock->list != tmpq)
>>   					break;
>> +				lock = NULL;
>>   			}
>>
>>   			/* lock is always created locally first, and
>> -->8-----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> 	I think I like the second one better.  Sunil, what do you think?
>>
>> Joel
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> Life's Little Instruction Book #335
>>
>> 	"Every so often, push your luck."
>>
>> Joel Becker
>> Consulting Software Developer
>> Oracle
>> E-mail: joel.becker at oracle.com
>> Phone: (650) 506-8127
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html