Re: [PATCH 06/10] virtio: console: fix race in port_fops_poll() and port unplug

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

 



On (Fri) 19 Jul 2013 [18:17:32], Jason Wang wrote:
> On 07/19/2013 03:48 PM, Amit Shah wrote:
> > On (Fri) 19 Jul 2013 [15:03:50], Jason Wang wrote:
> >> On 07/19/2013 04:16 AM, Amit Shah wrote:
> >>> Between poll() being called and processed, the port can be unplugged.
> >>> Check if this happened, and bail out.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Amit Shah <amit.shah@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>>  drivers/char/virtio_console.c | 4 ++++
> >>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/char/virtio_console.c b/drivers/char/virtio_console.c
> >>> index 7728af9..1d4b748 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/char/virtio_console.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/char/virtio_console.c
> >>> @@ -967,6 +967,10 @@ static unsigned int port_fops_poll(struct file *filp, poll_table *wait)
> >>>  	unsigned int ret;
> >>>  
> >>>  	port = filp->private_data;
> >>> +	if (!port->guest_connected) {
> >>> +		/* Port was unplugged before we could proceed */
> >>> +		return POLLHUP;
> >>> +	}
> >>>  	poll_wait(filp, &port->waitqueue, wait);
> >>>  
> >>>  	if (!port->guest_connected) {
> >> Looks still racy here. Unlike port_fops_read() which check
> >> will_read_block(). If unplug happens after the check but before the
> >> poll_wait(), caller will be blocked forever.
> > unplug_port() calls wake_up_interruptible on the waitqueue.
> 
> I mean the following cases:

(formatting to fit properly:)

> 
> CPU0:                                CPU1: unplug_port()
> 
> if (!port->guest_connected) {
>     return POLLHUP;
> }
>                                      wake_up_interruptiable()
> 
> poll_wait(filp, &port->waitqueue, wait);

Agreed, this can happen.  I can't think of a way to resolve this.  One
way would be to remove the waitqueue (port->waitqueue = NULL in
unplug_port()), but I'm not sure of the effect on the other parts
yet.  I'll leave this one for later analysis.

> But since it was existed even w/o this series. I agree to keep it as is
> and fix on top.

Yes, I think so too.

> Other looks good.

Thanks for your review!

		Amit
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization




[Index of Archives]     [KVM Development]     [Libvirt Development]     [Libvirt Users]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux