[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180614053446.GB18426@mtr-leonro.mtl.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 08:34:46 +0300
From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] infiniband: fix a subtle race condition
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 04:49:47PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> In ucma_event_handler() we lock the mutex like this:
>
> mutex_lock(&ctx->file->mut);
> ...
> mutex_unlock(&ctx->file->mut);
>
> which seems correct, but we could translate it into this:
>
> f = ctx->file;
> mutex_lock(&f->mut);
> ...
> f = ctx->file;
> mutex_unlock(&f->mut);
>
> as the compiler does. And, because ucma_event_handler() is
> called in a workqueue so it could race with ucma_migrate_id(),
> so the following race condition could happen:
>
> CPU0 CPU1
> f = ctx->file;
> ucma_lock_files(f, new_file);
> ctx->file = new_file
> ucma_lock_files(f, new_file);
> mutex_lock(&f->mut); // still the old file!
> ...
> f = ctx->file; // now the new one!!
> mutex_unlock(&f->mut); // unlock new file!
>
> Fix this by reading ctx->file once before mutex_lock(), so we
> won't unlock a different mutex any more.
Hi Cong,
If the compiler optimizes the first line (mutex_lock) as you wrote,
it will reuse "f" for the second line (mutex_unlock) too.
You need to ensure that ucma_modify_id() doesn't run in parallel to
anything that uses "ctx->file" directly and indirectly.
Thanks
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (802 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists