[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87levt14kn.ffs@tglx>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 19:00:08 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@...cinc.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: sboyd@...nel.org, rafael@...nel.org, johannes@...solutions.net,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 ] devcoredump : Serialize devcd_del work
On Mon, Apr 25 2022 at 18:39, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> v1->v2:
> - Added del_wk_queued to serialize the race between devcd_data_write()
> and disabled_store().
How so?
Neither the flag nor the mutex can prevent the race between the work
being executed in parallel.
disabled_store() worker()
class_for_each_device(&devcd_class, NULL, NULL, devcd_free)
...
while ((dev = class_dev_iter_next(&iter)) {
devcd_del()
device_del()
put_device() <- last reference
error = fn(dev, data) devcd_dev_release()
devcd_free(dev, data) kfree(devcd)
mutex_lock(&devcd->mutex);
There is zero protection of the class iterator against the work being
executed and removing the device and freeing its data. IOW, at the
point where fn(), i.e. devcd_free(), dereferences 'dev' to acquire the
mutex, it might be gone. No?
If disabled_store() really needs to flush all instances immediately,
then it requires global serialization, not device specific serialization.
Johannes, can you please explain whether this immediate flush in
disabled_store() is really required and if so, why?
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists