Re: [PATCH] libceph: protect pending flags in ceph_con_keepalive()

[Myungho Jung]

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 09:37:25PM +0100, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 4:50 AM Myungho Jung <mhjungk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I reproduced on vm using syzkaller utils and verified the fix by syzbot.
> 
> Hi Myungho,
> 
> I think this might be a better fix:
> 
> diff --git a/net/ceph/messenger.c b/net/ceph/messenger.c
> index d5718284db57..c5f5313e3537 100644
> --- a/net/ceph/messenger.c
> +++ b/net/ceph/messenger.c
> @@ -3205,10 +3205,11 @@ void ceph_con_keepalive(struct ceph_connection *con)
>  {
>         dout("con_keepalive %p\n", con);
>         mutex_lock(&con->mutex);
> +       con_flag_set(con, CON_FLAG_KEEPALIVE_PENDING);
>         clear_standby(con);
>         mutex_unlock(&con->mutex);
> -       if (con_flag_test_and_set(con, CON_FLAG_KEEPALIVE_PENDING) == 0 &&
> -           con_flag_test_and_set(con, CON_FLAG_WRITE_PENDING) == 0)
> +
> +       if (con_flag_test_and_set(con, CON_FLAG_WRITE_PENDING) == 0)
>                 queue_con(con);
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(ceph_con_keepalive);
> 
> WRITE_PENDING can be set without con->mutex held from socket callbacks.
> This is the reason we use atomic bit ops here, so testing WRITE_PENDING
> under the lock didn't make sense to me.
> 
> At the same time, KEEPALIVE_PENDING could have been a non-atomic flag.
> I spent some time trying to make sense of conditioning queue_con() call
> on the previous value of KEEPALIVE_PENDING and couldn't see any, so I'm
> setting it with con_flag_set(), making ceph_con_keepalive() symmetric
> with ceph_con_send().
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>                 Ilya

Hi Ilya,

Yes, it looks clear and makes sense to have an atomic operation in if statement
but it still triggers warning. KEEPALIVE_PENDING should be set after
clear_standby() because con_fault() can be called right before acquiring the
lock here which sets the flag in standby state. I tesed the change with syzbot
and confirmed there was no warning.

Thanks,
Myungho