[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160810035133.GD25053@mtj.duckdns.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 23:51:33 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Pavel Andrianov <andrianov@...ras.ru>
Cc: linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ldv-project@...uxtesting.org,
Vaishali Thakkar <vaishali.thakkar@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: Potential race condition in drivers/ata/sata_mv.ko
Hello,
On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 03:43:30PM +0300, Pavel Andrianov wrote:
> In drivers/ata/sata_mv.ko function mv_set_main_irq_mask is called several
> times. Twice with a spinlock, twice from init function and once without any
> protection. The call without protection rises to several handlers from
> ata_port_operations. The structure with the ata_port_operations is included
> into a structure 'host' in mv_platform_probe and in mv_pci_init_one. At the
> end of these functions ata_host operations are activated together with
> interrupt handler. The conclusion is: interrupt handler may be executed in
> parallel with handlers from ata_port_operations, or, more formally, it may
> interrupt its execution.
>
> In mv_set_main_irq_mask and in interrupt handler mv_interrupt the interrupt
> mask is modified, but, as I said, handlers from ata_port_operations do not
> acquire any lock. Thus, the interrupt mask may be set incorrectly if the are
> two conflicting modifications.
It depends on which operations. Most are only called from EH context
and racing there isn't likely to cause any actual issues. Care to
submit a patch to fix the issue?
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists