[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110817125127.GA3163@aepfle.de>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 14:51:27 +0200
From: Olaf Hering <olaf@...fle.de>
To: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>,
Keir Fraser <keir.xen@...il.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Konrad <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/3] xen/pv-on-hvm kexec: prevent crash in
xenwatch_thread() when stale watch events arrive
On Tue, Aug 16, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-08-16 at 14:16 +0100, Olaf Hering wrote:
> > During repeated kexec boots xenwatch_thread() can crash because
> > xenbus_watch->callback is cleared by xenbus_watch_path() if a node/token
> > combo for a new watch happens to match an already registered watch from
> > an old kernel. In this case xs_watch returns -EEXISTS, then
> > register_xenbus_watch() does not remove the to-be-registered watch from
> > the list of active watches but returns the -EEXISTS to the caller
> > anyway.
>
> Isn't this behaviour the root cause of the issue (which should be fixed)
> rather than papering over it during watch processing. IOW should't
> register_xenbus_watch cleanup after itself if xs_watch fails.
Keir, the EEXISTS case in register_xenbus_watch() was added by you 6
years ago. Do you happen to know what it tried to solve, and do these
conditions still apply today? Perhaps the EEXISTS can be removed now.
http://xenbits.xen.org/hg/xen-unstable.hg/diff/8016551fde98/linux-2.6-xen-sparse/drivers/xen/xenbus/xenbus_xs.c
Olaf
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists