[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1508241403100.5935-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 14:06:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
cc: eugene.shatokhin@...alab.ru, <bjorn@...k.no>, <oneukum@...e.com>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usbnet: Fix two races between usbnet_stop() and the BH
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015, David Miller wrote:
> From: Eugene Shatokhin <eugene.shatokhin@...alab.ru>
> Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:59:01 +0300
>
> > So the following might be possible, although unlikely:
> >
> > CPU0 CPU1
> > clear_bit: read dev->flags
> > clear_bit: clear EVENT_RX_KILL in the read value
> >
> > dev->flags=0;
> >
> > clear_bit: write updated dev->flags
> >
> > As a result, dev->flags may become non-zero again.
>
> Is this really possible?
>
> Stores really are "atomic" in the sense that the do their update
> in one indivisible operation.
Provided you use ACCESS_ONCE or WRITE_ONCE or whatever people like to
call it now.
> Atomic operations like clear_bit also will behave that way.
Are you certain about that? I couldn't find any mention of it in
Documentation/atomic_ops.txt.
In theory, an architecture could implement atomic bit operations using
a spinlock to insure atomicity. I don't know if any architectures do
this, but if they do then the scenario above could arise.
Alan Stern
--
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