Re: [RFC][PATCH] kvm: fix a race when closing irq eventfd
From: Alex Williamson
Date: Sun Feb 17 2013 - 23:03:00 EST
On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 11:13 +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> While trying to fix a race when closing cgroup eventfd, I took a look
> at how kvm deals with this problem, and I found it doesn't.
> I may be wrong, as I don't know kvm code, so correct me if I'm.
> * Race-free decouple logic (ordering is critical)
> static void
> irqfd_shutdown(struct work_struct *work)
> I don't think it's race-free!
> static int
> irqfd_wakeup(wait_queue_t *wait, unsigned mode, int sync, void *key)
> * We cannot race against the irqfd going away since the
> * other side is required to acquire wqh->lock, which we hold
> if (irqfd_is_active(irqfd))
> In kvm_irqfd_deassign() and kvm_irqfd_release() where irqfds are freed,
> wqh->lock is not acquired!
> So here is the race:
> CPU0 CPU1
> ----------------------------------- ---------------------------------
irqfd_wakeup is assumed to be called with wqh->lock held
eventfd_ctx_remove_wait_queue has to acquire wqh->lock to complete or
else irqfd_shutdown never makes it to the kfree. So in your scenario
this cpu0 spins here until cpu1 completes.
> if (!list_empty(&irqfd->list))
We don't take this branch because we already did list_del_init above,
which makes irqfd->list empty.
> Look, we're accessing irqfd though it has already been freed!
Unless the irqfd_wakeup path isn't acquiring wqh->lock, it looks
race-free to me. Thanks,
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/