On 07/23/2013 01:26 PM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> On 07/22/2013 01:45 PM, Rusty Russell wrote:
>>> Amit Shah <amit.shah@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>> 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.
>>> No, you are confused by the name, I think,
>>>
>>> poll_wait() doesn't actually wait. It's more like a poll_enqueue().
>> Yes, but the caller will wait then and since the wakeup was called
>> before adding into waitqueue. It may block forever?
> No, we enqueue then check:
>
> port = filp->private_data;
> poll_wait(filp, &port->waitqueue, wait);
>
> if (!port->guest_connected) {
> /* Port got unplugged */
> return POLLHUP;
> }
> ret = 0;
> if (!will_read_block(port))
> ret |= POLLIN | POLLRDNORM;
> if (!will_write_block(port))
> ret |= POLLOUT;
> if (!port->host_connected)
> ret |= POLLHUP;
>
> return ret;
>
> Which is the correct way to do this.
Right, thanks for the explaining.
>
> Cheers,
> Rusty.
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
