On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 12:17:37 +0100
Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 11:29:26 +0100
> Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 21:20:18 +0100
> > Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 12:03:51 +0100
> > > Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Rework handling of multiple I/O requests to return -EAGAIN if
> > > > we are already processing an I/O request. Introduce a mutex
> > > > to disallow concurrent writes to the I/O region.
> > > >
> > > > The expectation is that userspace simply retries the operation
> > > > if it gets -EAGAIN.
> > > >
> > > > We currently don't allow multiple ssch requests at the same
> > > > time, as we don't have support for keeping channel programs
> > > > around for more than one request.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > >
> > > [..]
> > >
> > > > static ssize_t vfio_ccw_mdev_write(struct mdev_device *mdev,
> > > > @@ -188,25 +192,30 @@ static ssize_t vfio_ccw_mdev_write(struct mdev_device *mdev,
> > > > {
> > > > struct vfio_ccw_private *private;
> > > > struct ccw_io_region *region;
> > > > + int ret;
> > > >
> > > > if (*ppos + count > sizeof(*region))
> > > > return -EINVAL;
> > > >
> > > > private = dev_get_drvdata(mdev_parent_dev(mdev));
> > > > - if (private->state != VFIO_CCW_STATE_IDLE)
> > > > + if (private->state == VFIO_CCW_STATE_NOT_OPER ||
> > > > + private->state == VFIO_CCW_STATE_STANDBY)
> > > > return -EACCES;
> > > > + if (!mutex_trylock(&private->io_mutex))
> > > > + return -EAGAIN;
> > > >
> > > > region = private->io_region;
> > > > - if (copy_from_user((void *)region + *ppos, buf, count))
> > > > - return -EFAULT;
> > > > + if (copy_from_user((void *)region + *ppos, buf, count)) {
> > >
> > > This might race with vfio_ccw_sch_io_todo() on
> > > private->io_region->irb_area, or?
> >
> > Ah yes, this should also take the mutex (should work because we're on a
> > workqueue).
> >
>
> I'm not sure that will do the trick (assumed I understood the
> intention correctly). Let's say the things happen in this order:
> 1) vfio_ccw_sch_io_todo() goes first, I guess updates
> private->io_region->irb_area and releases the mutex.
> 2) Then vfio_ccw_mdev_write() destroys the irb_area by zeriong it out,
> and finally,
> 3) userspace reads the destroyed irb_area using vfio_ccw_mdev_read().
>
> Or am I misunderstanding something?
You're not, but dealing with that race is outside the scope of this
patch. If userspace submits a request and then tries to get the old
data for a prior request, I suggest that userspace needs to fix their
sequencing.
