netdev - Re: [PATCH] usbnet: fix race condition caused spinlock bad magic issue

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20131111082330.GA12405@gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 11 Nov 2013 09:23:30 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	wangbiao <biao.wang@...el.com>
Cc:	oneukum@...e.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	mingo@...e.hu, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	william.douglas@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usbnet: fix race condition caused spinlock bad magic
 issue


* wangbiao <biao.wang@...el.com> wrote:

> @@ -1448,8 +1448,10 @@ static void usbnet_bh (unsigned long param)
>  
>  	// waiting for all pending urbs to complete?
>  	if (dev->wait) {
> +		wait_queue_head_t *wait_d = dev->wait;
>  		if ((dev->txq.qlen + dev->rxq.qlen + dev->done.qlen) == 0) {
> -			wake_up (dev->wait);
> +			if (wait_d)
> +				wake_up(wait_d);
>  		}
>  
>  	// or are we maybe short a few urbs?

1)

Nit: the scope of 'wait_d' is unnecessarily broad, it could be moved to 
the block that uses it.

2)

Also, the changelog mentions that dev->wait can race - it would be nice to 
add to the changelog what exact synchronization mechanism protects 
usbnet_terminate_urbs() and usbnet_bh() from seeing/modifying that value 
at once - as the code was clearly written without such interaction in 
mind.

> @@ -1602,6 +1604,7 @@ usbnet_probe (struct usb_interface *udev, const struct usb_device_id *prod)
>  	init_timer (&dev->delay);
>  	mutex_init (&dev->phy_mutex);
>  	mutex_init(&dev->interrupt_mutex);
> +	init_waitqueue_head(&unlink_wakeup);

3)

Can that runtime initialization be avoided by using 
DECLARE_WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD()?

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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