linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 001 of 9] md: Fix deadlock in md/raid1 and md/raid10 when handling a read error.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <18383.25889.876350.431676@notabene.brown>
Date:	Thu, 6 Mar 2008 14:29:37 +1100
From:	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
To:	Andre Noll <maan@...temlinux.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"K.Tanaka" <k-tanaka@...jp.nec.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 001 of 9] md: Fix deadlock in md/raid1 and md/raid10 when handling a read error.

On Tuesday March 4, maan@...temlinux.org wrote:
> On 17:08, Neil Brown wrote:
> > > Do we really need to take the spin lock in the common case where
> > > conf->pending_bio_list.head is NULL? If not, the above could be
> > > optimized to the slightly faster and better readable
> > > 
> > > 	struct bio *bio;
> > > 
> > > 	if (!conf->pending_bio_list.head)
> > > 		return 0;
> > > 	spin_lock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
> > > 	bio = bio_list_get(&conf->pending_bio_list);
> > > 	...
> > > 	spin_unlock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
> > > 	return 1;
> > 
> > Maybe... If I write a memory location inside a spinlock, then after
> > the spinlock is dropped, I read that location on a different CPU,
> > am I always guaranteed to see the new value? or do I need some sort of
> > memory barrier?
> 
> Are you worried about another CPU setting conf->pending_bio_list.head
> to != NULL after the if statement? If that's an issue I think also
> the original patch is problematic because the same might happen after
> the final spin_unlock_irq() but but before flush_pending_writes()
> returns zero.

No.  I'm worried that another CPU might set
conf->pending_bio_list.head *before* the if statement, but it isn't
seen by this CPU because of the lack of memory barriers.  The spinlock
ensures that the memory state is consistent.
It is possible that I am being overcautious.  But I think that is
better than the alternative.

Thanks,
NeilBrown
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/