lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] jump label: close race in jump_label_inc() vs. jump_label_dec()
From
Date
On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 10:32 -0500, Jason Baron wrote:
> The previous fix to ensure that jump_label_inc() does not return until the jump
> is completely patched, opened up a race in the inc/dec path. The scenario is:

You forgot something:


>
> key->enabled = 0;
>
> CPU 0 CPU 1
> ----- -----

jump_label_lock();

>
> jump_label_inc(): jump_label_dec():
>
> 1) if (atomic_read(&key->enabled) == 0)
> jump_label_update(key, JUMP_LABEL_ENABLE);
>
> 2) if (!atomic_dec_and_mutex_lock(&key->enabled, &jump_label_mutex))
> return;
>
> 3) atomic_inc(&key->enabled);

jump_label_unlock();



>
> So now, key->enabled = 0, but the jump has been enabled, which is an invalid
> state.

How does key->enabled end up == 0?

As Gleb said, it's a higher level bug if we do a jump_label_dec() when
key->enabled already is zero.

Thus, in this scenario, we enter jump_label_inc() with key->enabled=1,
and 1) will not be true. When we hit 2), it will have to grab the
jump_label_mutex, which will be held, thus it will block until CPU 0 is
finished, in which case, key->enabled=1 and the
atomic_dec_and_mutex_lock() will fail and return.

The end result is key->enabled=1 and we have jump labels enabled.

What's the invalid state?

-- Steve




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-01-05 15:43    [W:0.060 / U:0.448 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site