On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 10:13:06AM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
>> index 774c31d..d674977 100644
>> --- a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
>> +++ b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
>> @@ -199,8 +199,14 @@ static void do_virtblk_request(struct request_queue *q)
>> issued++;
>> }
>>
>> - if (issued)
>> - virtqueue_kick(vblk->vq);
>> + if (!issued)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + if (virtqueue_kick_prepare(vblk->vq)) {
>> + spin_unlock_irq(vblk->disk->queue->queue_lock);
>> + virtqueue_notify(vblk->vq);
>
> If blk_done runs and completes the request at this point,
> can hot unplug then remove the queue?
> If yes will we get a use after free?
This is a difficult question, I haven't been able to decide one way or
another. The use-after-free is the
spin_lock_irq(vblk->disk->queue->queue_lock).
It still doesn't explain why existing drivers are doing this. In nbd,
for example, I can't see anything preventing the same situation in
drivers/block/nbd.c:do_nbd_request() between wake_up() and
spin_lock_irq(q->queue_lock). If the request completes (like in your
example scenario) then the module remove code path has no way of
knowing there is still a thread in do_nbd_request().
Any ideas?
Stefan
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
