4.14-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------ From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]> commit 72961c4e6082be79825265d9193272b8a1634dec upstream. Even if we don't have an IO context attached to a request, we still need to clear the priv[0..1] pointers, as they could be pointing to previously used bic/bfqq structures. If we don't do so, we'll either corrupt memory on dispatching a request, or cause an imbalance in counters. Inspired by a fix from Kees. Reported-by: Oleksandr Natalenko <[email protected]> Reported-by: Kees Cook <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Fixes: aee69d78dec0 ("block, bfq: introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler as an extra scheduler") Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> --- block/bfq-iosched.c | 10 +++++++++- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) --- a/block/bfq-iosched.c +++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c @@ -4447,8 +4447,16 @@ static void bfq_prepare_request(struct r bool new_queue = false; bool bfqq_already_existing = false, split = false; - if (!rq->elv.icq) + /* + * Even if we don't have an icq attached, we should still clear + * the scheduler pointers, as they might point to previously + * allocated bic/bfqq structs. + */ + if (!rq->elv.icq) { + rq->elv.priv[0] = rq->elv.priv[1] = NULL; return; + } + bic = icq_to_bic(rq->elv.icq); spin_lock_irq(&bfqd->lock);
