[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1364582184.10629.34.camel@gandalf.local.home>
Date:	Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:36:24 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Nicolas de Pesloüan 
	<nicolas.2p.debian@...il.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Guy Streeter <streeter@...hat.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>, stephen@...workplumber.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] Crash with NULL pointer dereference in bond_handle_frame
 in -rt (possibly mainline)
On Fri, 2013-03-29 at 10:48 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Because, if rcu_dereference(dev->rx_handler) is null,
> rcu_dereference(dev->rx_handler_data) is never done. Therefore I believe
> we are hitting following scenario:
> 
> 
>    CPU0				CPU1
>    ----				----
>   			    dev->rx_handler_data = NULL
>  rcu_read_lock()
>  			    dev->rx_handler = NULL
> 
> 
That is not what is happening and that is not how RCU works. That is,
rcu_read_lock() does not block nor does it really do much with ordering
at all.
The problem is totally contained within the rcu_read_lock() as well:
If you have:
	rcu_read_lock();
	rx_handler = dev->rx_handler;
	rx_handler();
	rcu_read_unlock();
where rx_handler references rx->rx_handler_data you need much more than
making sure that rx->handler is set to null before rx_handler_data.
The way RCU works is it lets things exist in a "dual state". Kind of
like a Schödinger's cat. The solution Eric posted is a classic RCU
example of how this works.
When you set dev->rx_handler to NULL, there's two states that currently
exist in the system. Those that still see dev->rx_handler set to
something and those that see it set to NULL. You could put in memory
barriers to your hearts content, but you will still have a system that
sees things in a dual state. If you set dev->rx_handler_data to NULL,
you risk those that see rx_handler as a function can still reference the
rx_handler_data when it is NULL.
Think of it this way:
	dev->rx_handler() {
Once the function has been called, even if you set rx_handler() to NULL
at this point, it makes no difference, even with memory barriers. This
CPU is about to execute the previous value of rx_handler and there's
nothing you can do to stop it. Setting rx_handler_data to NULL now can
cause that CPU to reference the NULL pointer. There isn't a ordering
problem where rx_handler_data got set to NULL first.
But the beauty about RCU is the synchronize_*() functions, because that
puts the system back into a single state. After the synchronization is
complete, the entire system sees rx_handler() as NULL. There is no worry
about setting rx_handler_data to NULL now because nothing will be
referencing the previous value of rx_handler because that value no
longer exists in the system.
That means Eric's solution fits perfectly well here.
	< system in single state : everyone sees rx_handler = function() >
	rx_handler = NULL;
	< system in dual state : new calls see rx_handler = NULL, but
	  current calls see rx_handler = function >
	synchronize_net();
	< system is back to single state: everyone sees rx_handler = NULL >
	rx_handler_data = NULL;
no problem ;-)
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
 
