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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 16:12:04 +0200 From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com> To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> Cc: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com> Subject: Re: Question about IRQs during the .remove() of virtio-vsock driver On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 09:56:42AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 03:49:20PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 06:05:31AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 11:44:07AM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > > > > Hi Micheal, Jason, > > > > as suggested by Stefan, I'm checking if we have some races in the > > > > virtio-vsock driver. We found some races in the .probe() and .remove() > > > > with the upper layer (socket) and I'll fix it. > > > > > > > > Now my attention is on the bottom layer (virtio device) and my question is: > > > > during the .remove() of virtio-vsock driver (virtio_vsock_remove), could happen > > > > that an IRQ comes and one of our callback (e.g. virtio_vsock_rx_done()) is > > > > executed, queueing new works? > > > > > > > > I tried to follow the code in both cases (device unplugged or module removed) > > > > and maybe it couldn't happen because we remove it from bus's knowledge, > > > > but I'm not sure and your advice would be very helpful. > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance, > > > > Stefano > > > > > > > > > Great question! This should be better documented: patches welcome! > > > > When I'm clear, I'll be happy to document this. > > > > > > > > Here's my understanding: > > > > > > > > > A typical removal flow works like this: > > > > > > - prevent linux from sending new kick requests to device > > > and flush such outstanding requests if any > > > (device can still send notifications to linux) > > > > > > - call > > > vi->vdev->config->reset(vi->vdev); > > > this will flush all device writes and interrupts. > > > device will not use any more buffers. > > > previously outstanding callbacks might still be active. > > > > > > - Then call > > > vdev->config->del_vqs(vdev); > > > to flush outstanding callbacks if any. > > > > Thanks for sharing these useful information. > > > > So, IIUC between step 1 (e.g. in virtio-vsock we flush all work-queues) and > > step 2, new IRQs could happen, and in the virtio-vsock driver new work > > will be queued. > > > > In order to handle this case, I'm thinking to add a new variable > > 'work_enabled' in the struct virtio_vsock, put it to false at the start > > of the .remove(), then call synchronize_rcu() before to flush all work > > queues > > and use an helper function virtio_transport_queue_work() to queue > > a new work, where the check of work_enabled and the queue_work are in the > > RCU read critical section. > > > > Here a pseudo code to explain better the idea: > > > > virtio_vsock_remove() { > > vsock->work_enabled = false; > > > > /* Wait for other CPUs to finish to queue works */ > > synchronize_rcu(); > > > > flush_works(); > > > > vdev->config->reset(vdev); > > > > ... > > > > vdev->config->del_vqs(vdev); > > } > > > > virtio_vsock_queue_work(vsock, work) { > > rcu_read_lock(); > > > > if (!vsock->work_enabled) { > > goto out; > > } > > > > queue_work(virtio_vsock_workqueue, work); > > > > out: > > rcu_read_unlock(); > > } > > > > > > Do you think can work? > > Please tell me if there is a better way to handle this case. > > > > Thanks, > > Stefano > > > instead of rcu tricks I would just have rx_run and tx_run and check it > within the queued work - presumably under tx or rx lock. > > then queueing an extra work becomes harmless, > and you flush it after del vqs which flushes everything for you. > > Sure, the patch should be even smaller! Thank you very much for the advice, Stefano
Powered by blists - more mailing lists