On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 02:30:34PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 10:51:45AM +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 09:53:23PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > > > > + u32 *rd_flags = hw->dma_desc_table_rd.cpu_addr->flags;
> > > > > > + u32 *wr_flags = hw->dma_desc_table_wr.cpu_addr->flags;
> > > > > > + struct avalon_dma_desc *desc;
> > > > > > + struct virt_dma_desc *vdesc;
> > > > > > + bool rd_done;
> > > > > > + bool wr_done;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + spin_lock(lock);
[*]
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + rd_done = (hw->h2d_last_id < 0);
> > > > > > + wr_done = (hw->d2h_last_id < 0);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + if (rd_done && wr_done) {
> > > > > > + spin_unlock(lock);
> > > > > > + return IRQ_NONE;
> > > > > > + }
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + do {
> > > > > > + if (!rd_done && rd_flags[hw->h2d_last_id])
> > > > > > + rd_done = true;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + if (!wr_done && wr_flags[hw->d2h_last_id])
> > > > > > + wr_done = true;
> > > > > > + } while (!rd_done || !wr_done);
> > > > >
> > > > > This loop is very strange. It feels like the last_id indexes needs
> > > > > to atomic or protected from racing somehow so we don't do an out of
> > > > > bounds read.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > You're missing my point. When we set
> > > hw->d2h_last_id = 1;
> > [1]
> > > ...
> > > hw->d2h_last_id = 2;
> > [2]
> >
> > > There is a tiny moment where ->d2h_last_id is transitioning from 1 to 2
> > > where its value is unknown. We're in a busy loop here so we have a
> > > decent chance of hitting that 1/1000,000th of a second. If we happen to
> > > hit it at exactly the right time then we're reading from a random
> > > address and it will cause an oops.
> > >
> > > We have to use atomic_t types or something to handle race conditions.
> >
> > Err.. I am still missing the point :( In your example I do see a chance
> > for a reader to read out 1 at point in time [2] - because of SMP race.
> > But what could it be other than 1 or 2?
> >
>
> The 1 to 2 transition was a poorly chosen example, but a -1 to 1
> trasition is better. The cpu could write a byte at a time. So maybe
> it only wrote the two highest bytes so now it's 0xffff. It's not -1 and
> it's not 1 and it's not a valid index.
>
> > Anyways, all code paths dealing with h2d_last_id and d2h_last_id indexes
> > are protected with a spinlock.
>
> You have to protect both the writer and the reader. (That's why this
> bug is so easy to spot). https://lwn.net/Articles/793253/
I struggle to realize how the spinlock I use (see [*] above) does not
protect the reader.
I am going to post updated version shortly, hopefully it will make more
sense.
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
