Re: [PATCH] usbnet: Fix two races between usbnet_stop() and the BH

[Alan Stern]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2015, Alan Stern wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015, David Miller wrote:
> 
> > From: Eugene Shatokhin <eugene.shatokhin@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:59:01 +0300
> > 
> > > So the following might be possible, although unlikely:
> > > 
> > > CPU0             CPU1
> > >                  clear_bit: read dev->flags
> > >                  clear_bit: clear EVENT_RX_KILL in the read value
> > > 
> > > dev->flags=0;
> > > 
> > >                  clear_bit: write updated dev->flags
> > > 
> > > As a result, dev->flags may become non-zero again.
> > 
> > Is this really possible?
> > 
> > Stores really are "atomic" in the sense that the do their update
> > in one indivisible operation.
> 
> Provided you use ACCESS_ONCE or WRITE_ONCE or whatever people like to 
> call it now.
> 
> > Atomic operations like clear_bit also will behave that way.
> 
> Are you certain about that?  I couldn't find any mention of it in
> Documentation/atomic_ops.txt.
> 
> In theory, an architecture could implement atomic bit operations using 
> a spinlock to insure atomicity.  I don't know if any architectures do 
> this, but if they do then the scenario above could arise.

Now that I see this in writing, I realize it's not possible after all.  
clear_bit() et al. will work with a single unsigned long, which doesn't
leave any place for spinlocks or other mechanisms.  I was thinking of 
atomic_t.

So never mind...

Alan Stern

--
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/