lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jun]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] infiniband: fix a subtle race condition
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 04:49:47PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> In ucma_event_handler() we lock the mutex like this:
>
> mutex_lock(&ctx->file->mut);
> ...
> mutex_unlock(&ctx->file->mut);
>
> which seems correct, but we could translate it into this:
>
> f = ctx->file;
> mutex_lock(&f->mut);
> ...
> f = ctx->file;
> mutex_unlock(&f->mut);
>
> as the compiler does. And, because ucma_event_handler() is
> called in a workqueue so it could race with ucma_migrate_id(),
> so the following race condition could happen:
>
> CPU0 CPU1
> f = ctx->file;
> ucma_lock_files(f, new_file);
> ctx->file = new_file
> ucma_lock_files(f, new_file);
> mutex_lock(&f->mut); // still the old file!
> ...
> f = ctx->file; // now the new one!!
> mutex_unlock(&f->mut); // unlock new file!
>
> Fix this by reading ctx->file once before mutex_lock(), so we
> won't unlock a different mutex any more.

Hi Cong,

If the compiler optimizes the first line (mutex_lock) as you wrote,
it will reuse "f" for the second line (mutex_unlock) too.

You need to ensure that ucma_modify_id() doesn't run in parallel to
anything that uses "ctx->file" directly and indirectly.

Thanks
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-06-14 08:09    [W:0.087 / U:17.708 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site