[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b959b82a-510f-45c0-9e06-acf526c2f4a1@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:23:04 -0500
From: Mike Christie <michael.christie@...cle.com>
To: Edward Adam Davis <eadavis@...com>,
syzbot+98edc2df894917b3431f@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Cc: jasowang@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mst@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, virtualization@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH next] vhost_task: after freeing vhost_task it should not
be accessed in vhost_task_fn
On 4/30/24 8:05 AM, Edward Adam Davis wrote:
> static int vhost_task_fn(void *data)
> {
> struct vhost_task *vtsk = data;
> @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ static int vhost_task_fn(void *data)
> schedule();
> }
>
> - mutex_lock(&vtsk->exit_mutex);
> + mutex_lock(&exit_mutex);
> /*
> * If a vhost_task_stop and SIGKILL race, we can ignore the SIGKILL.
> * When the vhost layer has called vhost_task_stop it's already stopped
> @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ static int vhost_task_fn(void *data)
> vtsk->handle_sigkill(vtsk->data);
> }
> complete(&vtsk->exited);
> - mutex_unlock(&vtsk->exit_mutex);
> + mutex_unlock(&exit_mutex);
>
Edward, thanks for the patch. I think though I just needed to swap the
order of the calls above.
Instead of:
complete(&vtsk->exited);
mutex_unlock(&vtsk->exit_mutex);
it should have been:
mutex_unlock(&vtsk->exit_mutex);
complete(&vtsk->exited);
If my analysis is correct, then Michael do you want me to resubmit a
patch on top of your vhost branch or resubmit the entire patchset?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists