[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201002120133.GB3339665@kroah.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 14:01:33 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: minyard@....org
Cc: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Corey Minyard <cminyard@...sta.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers:tty:pty: Fix a race causing data loss on close
On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 09:16:30PM -0500, minyard@....org wrote:
> From: Corey Minyard <cminyard@...sta.com>
>
> If you write to a pty master an immediately close the pty master, the
> receiver might get a chunk of data dropped, but then receive some later
> data. That's obviously something rather unexpected for a user. It
> certainly confused my test program.
>
> It turns out that tty_vhangup() gets called from pty_close(), and that
> causes the data on the slave side to be flushed, but due to races more
> data can be copied into the slave side's buffer after that. Consider
> the following sequence:
>
> thread1 thread2 thread3
> write data into buffer,
> n_tty buffer is filled
> pty_close()
> tty_vhangup()
> tty_ldisc_hangup()
> n_tty_flush_buffer()
> reset_buffer_flags()
> n_tty_read()
> up_read(&tty->termios_rwsem);
> down_read(&tty->termios_rwsem);
> clear n_tty buffer contents
> up_read(&tty->termios_rwsem);
> tty_buffer_flush_work()
> schedules work calling
> flush_to_ldisc()
> flush_to_ldisc()
> receive_buf()
> tty_port_default_receive_buf()
> tty_ldisc_receive_buf()
> tty_ldisc_receive_buf()
> n_tty_receive_buf2()
> n_tty_receive_buf_common()
> down_read(&tty->termios_rwsem);
> __receive_buf()
> copies data into n_tty buffer
> up_read(&tty->termios_rwsem);
> down_read(&tty->termios_rwsem);
> copy buffer data to user
Your text got line-wrapped here for this explaination and it doesn't
make much sense :(
Can you resend this?
> This change checks to see if the tty is being hung up before copying
> anything in n_tty_receive_buf_common(). It has to be done after the
> tty->termios_rwsem semaphore is claimed, for reasons that should be
> apparent from the sequence above.
That kind of makes sense, but it's tricky, if you resend with the above
fixed it might be more obvious...
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists