4.12-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Bob Peterson <rpete...@redhat.com>
[ Upstream commit 6c7e983b220f89e03286dc70a41c7ef3a8b409df ]
In 9dbbfb0ab6680c6a85609041011484e6658e7d3c function tipc_sk_reinit
had additional logic added to loop in the event that function
rhashtable_walk_next() returned -EAGAIN. No worries.
However, if rhashtable_walk_start returns -EAGAIN, it does "continue",
and therefore skips the call to rhashtable_walk_stop(). That has
the effect of calling rcu_read_lock() without its paired call to
rcu_read_unlock(). Since rcu_read_lock() may be nested, the problem
may not be apparent for a while, especially since resize events may
be rare. But the comments to rhashtable_walk_start() state:
* ...Note that we take the RCU lock in all
* cases including when we return an error. So you must always call
* rhashtable_walk_stop to clean up.
This patch replaces the continue with a goto and label to ensure a
matching call to rhashtable_walk_stop().
Signed-off-by: Bob Peterson <rpete...@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Herbert Xu <herb...@gondor.apana.org.au>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <da...@davemloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org>
---
net/tipc/socket.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
--- a/net/tipc/socket.c
+++ b/net/tipc/socket.c
@@ -2255,8 +2255,8 @@ void tipc_sk_reinit(struct net *net)
do {
tsk = ERR_PTR(rhashtable_walk_start(&iter));
- if (tsk)
- continue;
+ if (IS_ERR(tsk))
+ goto walk_stop;
while ((tsk = rhashtable_walk_next(&iter)) && !IS_ERR(tsk)) {
spin_lock_bh(&tsk->sk.sk_lock.slock);
@@ -2265,7 +2265,7 @@ void tipc_sk_reinit(struct net *net)
msg_set_orignode(msg, tn->own_addr);
spin_unlock_bh(&tsk->sk.sk_lock.slock);
}
-
+walk_stop:
rhashtable_walk_stop(&iter);
} while (tsk == ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN));
}
