When alloc_and_link_pwqs() fails partway through the per-cpu allocation
loop, some pool_workqueues may have already been linked into wq->pwqs
via link_pwq(). The error path frees these pwqs with kmem_cache_free()
but never removes them from the wq->pwqs list, leaving dangling pointers
in the list.

Currently this is not exploitable because the workqueue was never added
to the global workqueues list and the caller frees the wq immediately
after. However, this makes sure that alloc_and_link_pwqs() doesn't leave
any half baked structure, which may have side effect is not properly
used.

Fix this by unlinking each pwq from wq->pwqs before freeing it. No
locking is needed as the workqueue has not been published yet, thus
no concurrency is possible.

Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
---
 kernel/workqueue.c | 10 +++++++++-
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
index b77119d71641a..70581fa7b4e24 100644
--- a/kernel/workqueue.c
+++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
@@ -5623,8 +5623,16 @@ static int alloc_and_link_pwqs(struct workqueue_struct *wq)
 		for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
 			struct pool_workqueue *pwq = *per_cpu_ptr(wq->cpu_pwq, cpu);
 
-			if (pwq)
+			if (pwq) {
+				/*
+				 * Unlink pwq from wq->pwqs since link_pwq()
+				 * may have already added it. wq->mutex is not
+				 * needed as the wq has not been published yet.
+				 */
+				if (!list_empty(&pwq->pwqs_node))
+					list_del_rcu(&pwq->pwqs_node);
 				kmem_cache_free(pwq_cache, pwq);
+			}
 		}
 		free_percpu(wq->cpu_pwq);
 		wq->cpu_pwq = NULL;

---
base-commit: c369299895a591d96745d6492d4888259b004a9e
change-id: 20260323-workqueue_link-d1503237f242

Best regards,
--  
Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>

Applied to wq/for-7.1 with a minor commit message edit:

  "which may have side effect is not properly used"
  -> "which may have side effects if not properly cleaned up"

Thanks.

--
tejun

On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 08:35:50AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Applied to wq/for-7.1 with a minor commit message edit:
> 
>   "which may have side effect is not properly used"
>   -> "which may have side effects if not properly cleaned up"

ack. Thanks for fixing it.

--breno