On Thu, Dec 5, 2024 at 3:46 PM Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu 05-12-24 13:03:32, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> > See the added commentary for reasoning.
> >
> > ->resize_in_progress handling is moved inside of expand_fdtable() for
> > clarity.
> >
> > Whacks an actual fence on arm64.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Hum, I don't think this works. What could happen now is:
>
> CPU1 CPU2
> expand_fdtable() fd_install()
> files->resize_in_progress = true;
> ...
> if (atomic_read(&files->count) > 1)
> synchronize_rcu();
> ...
> rcu_assign_pointer(files->fdt, new_fdt);
> if (cur_fdt != &files->fdtab)
> call_rcu(&cur_fdt->rcu, free_fdtable_rcu);
>
> rcu_read_lock_sched()
>
> fdt = rcu_dereference_sched(files->fdt);
> /* Fetched old FD table - without
> * smp_rmb() the read was reordered */
> rcu_assign_pointer(files->fdt, new_fdt);
> /*
> * Publish everything before we unset ->resize_in_progress, see above
> * for an explanation.
> */
> smp_wmb();
> out:
> files->resize_in_progress = false;
> if (unlikely(files->resize_in_progress)) {
> - false
> rcu_assign_pointer(fdt->fd[fd], file);
> - store in the old table - boom.
>
I don't believe this ordering is possible because of both
synchronize_rcu and the fence before updating resize_in_progress.
Any CPU which could try racing like that had to come in after the
synchronize_rcu() call, meaning one of the 3 possibilities:
- the flag is true and the fd table is old
- the flag is true and the fd table is new
- the flag is false and the fd table is new
Suppose the CPU reordered loads of the flag and the fd table. There is
no ordering in which it can see both the old table and the unset flag.
--
Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik gmail.com>
