linux-kernel - Re: block: ioc->refcount accessed twice in put_io

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4DA2C197.1060402@kernel.dk>
Date:	Mon, 11 Apr 2011 10:53:43 +0200
From:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
CC:	Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: block: ioc->refcount accessed twice in put_io_context()?

On 2011-04-11 10:45, Paul Bolle wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-04-11 at 09:42 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> Indeed, there is nothing wrong with having the BUG_ON() there first and
>> doing the decrement later.
> 
> But what makes sure then that refcount doesn't get decremented by
> something else just before the atomic_long_dec_and_test() call. Eg:
> 
> Thread 1			Thread 2
> ========                        ========
> BUG_ON()
> 				BUG_ON()
> atomic_long_dec_and_test()
> 				atomic_long_dec_and_test()
> 				/* refcount drops to -1 here */
> 
> Or is this not possible?

It's not possible, if it was then that would be the bug - someone
releasing a reference to the ioc that they do not hold. And that is what
the BUG_ON() is there to catch, not a race between two threads.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/