>From code inspection it seems that after freeing 'req', in smb_request()
we continue to dereference it a dozen or so times.
That whole area of code looks suspect.
...
smb_lock_server(server);
if (!(req->rq_flags & SMB_REQ_RECEIVED)) {
list_del_init(&req->rq_queue);
smb_rput(req);
}
smb_rput() also does a list_del_init, but only if its safe
to do so (ie, the refcount has dropped to 0).
To my not-smbfs-savvy eyes, it would seem that we could
potentially nuke the ->rq_queue list, and return from
smb_rput() if the request was still in use. What the rest
of the code does with such a buggered-up request, I've no
idea, but it probably isn't pretty.
Perhaps smb_rput should be taking a pointer to a request that can
be null'd on success ?
Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <[email protected]>
--- linux-2.6.12/fs/smbfs/request.c~ 2005-07-07 14:41:11.000000000 -0400
+++ linux-2.6.12/fs/smbfs/request.c 2005-07-07 14:41:22.000000000 -0400
@@ -348,6 +348,7 @@ int smb_add_request(struct smb_request *
smb_rput(req);
}
smb_unlock_server(server);
+ return -EINTR;
}
if (!timeleft) {
Looking further, we do exactly the same thing in smb_request_recv()
smb_rput(req);
wake_up_interruptible(&req->rq_wait);
}
ditto in smbiod.c..
What am I missing here? smb_rput() -> smb_free_request() does
a kmem_cache_free(req_cachep, req); making further use of that
cache item invalid.
Dave
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |