lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Nov]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH, RESEND] ipc/shm: handle removed segments gracefully in shm_mmap()
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>And I had concern about your approach:
>
> If I read it correctly, with the patch we would ignore locking
> failure inside shm_open() and mmap will succeed in this case. So
> the idea is to have shm_close() no-op and therefore symmetrical.

Both open and close are no-ops in the case the segment has been removed,
that's the symmetrical, and I'm not sure I follow -- we don't ignore locking
failure in shm_open _at all_. Just like your approach, all I do is return if
there's an error...

> That's look fragile to me. We would silently miss some other
> broken open/close pattern.

Such cases, if any, should be fixed and handled appropriately, not hide
it under the rung, methinks.

>>
>> o My shm_check_vma_validity() also deals with IPC_RMID as we do the
>> ipc_valid_object() check.
>
>Mine too:
>
> shm_mmap()
> __shm_open()
> shm_lock()
> ipc_lock()
> ipc_valid_object()
>
>Or I miss something?

Sorry, I meant ipc_obtain_object_idr, so EINVAL is also accounted for, we
the segment is already deleted and not only marked as such.

>
>> o We have a new WARN where necessary, instead of having one now is shm_open.
>
>I'm not sure why you think that shm_close() which was never paired with
>successful shm_open() doesn't deserve WARN().
>
>> o My no-ops explicitly pair.
>
>As I said before, I don't think we should ignore locking error in
>shm_open(). If we propagate the error back to caller shm_close() should
>never happen, therefore no-op is unneeded in shm_close(): my patch trigger
>WARN() there.

Yes, you WARN() in shm_close, but you still make it a no-op...

>
>> > ret = sfd->file->f_op->mmap(sfd->file, vma);
>> >- if (ret != 0)
>> >+ if (ret) {
>> >+ shm_close(vma);
>> > return ret;
>> >+ }
>>
>> Hmm what's this shm_close() about?
>
>Undo shp->shm_nattch++ in successful __shm_open().

Yeah that's just nasty.

>
>I've got impression that I miss something important about how locking in
>IPC/SHM works, but I cannot grasp what.. Hm?.

Could you be more specific? The only lock involved here is the ipc object lock,
if you haven't, you might want to refer to ipc/util.c which has a brief ipc
locking description.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-11-13 07:21    [W:0.111 / U:0.308 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site