[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1325774396.12696.49.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 09:39:56 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>
Cc: gleb@...hat.com, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] jump label: close race in jump_label_inc() vs.
jump_label_dec()
On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 10:32 -0500, Jason Baron wrote:
> The previous fix to ensure that jump_label_inc() does not return until the jump
> is completely patched, opened up a race in the inc/dec path. The scenario is:
You forgot something:
>
> key->enabled = 0;
>
> CPU 0 CPU 1
> ----- -----
jump_label_lock();
>
> jump_label_inc(): jump_label_dec():
>
> 1) if (atomic_read(&key->enabled) == 0)
> jump_label_update(key, JUMP_LABEL_ENABLE);
>
> 2) if (!atomic_dec_and_mutex_lock(&key->enabled, &jump_label_mutex))
> return;
>
> 3) atomic_inc(&key->enabled);
jump_label_unlock();
>
> So now, key->enabled = 0, but the jump has been enabled, which is an invalid
> state.
How does key->enabled end up == 0?
As Gleb said, it's a higher level bug if we do a jump_label_dec() when
key->enabled already is zero.
Thus, in this scenario, we enter jump_label_inc() with key->enabled=1,
and 1) will not be true. When we hit 2), it will have to grab the
jump_label_mutex, which will be held, thus it will block until CPU 0 is
finished, in which case, key->enabled=1 and the
atomic_dec_and_mutex_lock() will fail and return.
The end result is key->enabled=1 and we have jump labels enabled.
What's the invalid state?
-- Steve
--
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