Re: irq_desc use-after-free in smp_irq_move_cleanup_interrupt

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2015, Jiang Liu wrote:

Please trim your replies.
 
> On 2015/11/26 5:12, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Looks a bit overkill with the extra cpumask. I tried a simple counter
> > but that does not work versus cpu unplug as we do not know whether the
> > outgoing cpu is involved in the cleanup or not. And if the cpu is
> > involved we starve assign_irq_vector() ....
> > 
> > The upside of this is that we get rid of that atomic allocation in
> > __send_cleanup_vector().
>
> 	Maybe more headache for you now:)
> 	It seems there are still rooms for improvements. First it
> seems we could just reuse old_domain instead of adding cleanup_mask.

I really like to get rid of that atomic allocation in
__send_cleanup_vector()

> Second I found another race window among x86_vector_free_irqs(),
> __send_cleanup_vector() and smp_irq_move_cleanup_interrupt().

What's the race there?

> I'm trying to refine your patch based following rules:
> 1) move_in_progress controls whether we need to send IPIs
> 2) old_domain controls which CPUs we should do clean up
> 3) assign_irq_vector checks both move_in_progress and old_domain.
> Will send out the patch soon for comments:)

Sure.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/