RE: [PATCH net] ravb: Fix races between ravb_tx_timeout_work() and net related ops

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hello Sergey,

> From: Sergey Shtylyov, Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2023 2:27 AM
> 
> On 10/18/23 12:39 PM, Yoshihiro Shimoda wrote:
> [...]
> >>> Fix races between ravb_tx_timeout_work() and functions of net_device_ops
> >>> and ethtool_ops by using rtnl_trylock() and rtnl_unlock(). Note that
> >>> since ravb_close() is under the rtnl lock and calls cancel_work_sync(),
> >>> ravb_tx_timeout_work() calls rtnl_trylock() to avoid a deadlock.
> >>
> >>    I don't quite follow... how calling cancel_work_sync() is a problem?
> >> I thought the problem was that unregister_netdev() can be called with
> >> the TX timeout work still pending? And, more generally, shouldn't we
> >> protect against the TX timeout work being executed on a different CPU
> >> than the {net_device|ethtool}_ops methods are being executed (is that
> >> possible?)?
> >
> > __dev_close_many() in net/core/dev.c calls ASSERT_RTNL() and ops->ndo_stop().
> > So, the ravb_close() is under rtnl lock. While locking the rtnl, it's
> > possible to call ravb_tx_timeout_work() on other CPU. In such a case,
> > it's possible to cause a deadlock between ravb_close() and ravb_tx_timeout_work()
> >
> > CPU0				CPU1
> > 				ravb_tx_timeout()
> > 				schedule_work()
> > ...
> > __dev_close_many()
> > // this is under rtnl lock
> > ravb_close()
> > cancel_work_sync()
> > 				ravb_tx_timeout_work()
> > 				rtnl_lock()
> > 				// this is possible to cause a deadlock
> 
>    Ah, cancel_work_sync() means we have to wait for the work to
> finish -- indeed a deadlock is possiblet then.

Thank you for your reply. I'll update commit description in v2.

> >>    I also had a suspicion that we still miss the spinlock calls in
> >> ravb_tx_timeout_work() but nothing in particular jumped at me...
> 
>    We mainly need to protect against the interrupts in this case...

I think so. However, we can not use spin_lock_irqsave() for whole this
ravb_tx_timeout_work() because ravb_ring_init() calls kcalloc() with GFP_KERNEL.

> >> mind looking into that? :-)
> >
> > Yes, perhaps we have to check it somehow...
> 
>    Unfortunately, I don't seem to have no bandwidth to do that myself...

I got it. I'll investigate this later.

Best regards,
Yoshihiro Shimoda

> [...]
> 
> MBR, Sergey




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SOC]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux