[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <PU1P153MB01693DB2206CD639AF356DBDBF0A0@PU1P153MB0169.APCP153.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 17:16:37 +0000
From: Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>
To: Sunil Muthuswamy <sunilmut@...rosoft.com>,
KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>,
Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] hv_sock: Add support for delayed close
> From: linux-hyperv-owner@...r.kernel.org
> <linux-hyperv-owner@...r.kernel.org> On Behalf Of Dexuan Cui
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 9:34 PM
> ...
Hi Sunil,
To make it clear, your patch itself is good, and I was just talking about
the next change we're going to make. Once we make the next change,
IMO we need a further patch to schedule hvs_close_timeout() to the new
single-threaded workqueue rather than the global "system_wq".
> Next, we're going to remove the "channel->rescind" check in
> vmbus_hvsock_device_unregister() -- when doing that, IMO we need to
> fix a potential race revealed by the schedule_delayed_work() in this
> patch:
>
> When hvs_close_timeout() finishes, the "sk" struct has been freed, but
> vmbus_onoffer_rescind() -> channel->chn_rescind_callback(), i.e.
> hvs_close_connection(), may be still running and referencing the "chan"
> and "sk" structs (), which should no longer be referenced when
> hvs_close_timeout() finishes, i.e. "get_per_channel_state(chan)" is no
> longer safe. The problem is: currently there is no sync mechanism
> between vmbus_onoffer_rescind() and hvs_close_timeout().
>
> The race is a real issue only after we remove the "channel->rescind"
> in vmbus_hvsock_device_unregister().
A correction: IMO the race is real even for the current code, i.e. without
your patch: in vmbus_onoffer_rescind(), between we set channel->rescind
and we call channel->chn_rescind_callback(), the channel may have been
freed by vmbus_hvsock_device_unregister().
This race window is small and I guess that's why we never noticed it.
> I guess we need to introduce a new single-threaded workqueue in the
> vmbus driver, and offload both vmbus_onoffer_rescind() and
> hvs_close_timeout() onto the new workqueue.
Thanks,
-- Dexuan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists