lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [May]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/4] vsock/virtio: fix flush of works during the .remove()
From
Date

On 2019/5/29 下午6:58, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 11:22:40AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On 2019/5/28 下午6:56, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>>> We flush all pending works before to call vdev->config->reset(vdev),
>>> but other works can be queued before the vdev->config->del_vqs(vdev),
>>> so we add another flush after it, to avoid use after free.
>>>
>>> Suggested-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>> net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++------
>>> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
>>> index e694df10ab61..ad093ce96693 100644
>>> --- a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
>>> +++ b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
>>> @@ -660,6 +660,15 @@ static int virtio_vsock_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
>>> return ret;
>>> }
>>> +static void virtio_vsock_flush_works(struct virtio_vsock *vsock)
>>> +{
>>> + flush_work(&vsock->loopback_work);
>>> + flush_work(&vsock->rx_work);
>>> + flush_work(&vsock->tx_work);
>>> + flush_work(&vsock->event_work);
>>> + flush_work(&vsock->send_pkt_work);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> static void virtio_vsock_remove(struct virtio_device *vdev)
>>> {
>>> struct virtio_vsock *vsock = vdev->priv;
>>> @@ -668,12 +677,6 @@ static void virtio_vsock_remove(struct virtio_device *vdev)
>>> mutex_lock(&the_virtio_vsock_mutex);
>>> the_virtio_vsock = NULL;
>>> - flush_work(&vsock->loopback_work);
>>> - flush_work(&vsock->rx_work);
>>> - flush_work(&vsock->tx_work);
>>> - flush_work(&vsock->event_work);
>>> - flush_work(&vsock->send_pkt_work);
>>> -
>>> /* Reset all connected sockets when the device disappear */
>>> vsock_for_each_connected_socket(virtio_vsock_reset_sock);
>>> @@ -690,6 +693,9 @@ static void virtio_vsock_remove(struct virtio_device *vdev)
>>> vsock->event_run = false;
>>> mutex_unlock(&vsock->event_lock);
>>> + /* Flush all pending works */
>>> + virtio_vsock_flush_works(vsock);
>>> +
>>> /* Flush all device writes and interrupts, device will not use any
>>> * more buffers.
>>> */
>>> @@ -726,6 +732,11 @@ static void virtio_vsock_remove(struct virtio_device *vdev)
>>> /* Delete virtqueues and flush outstanding callbacks if any */
>>> vdev->config->del_vqs(vdev);
>>> + /* Other works can be queued before 'config->del_vqs()', so we flush
>>> + * all works before to free the vsock object to avoid use after free.
>>> + */
>>> + virtio_vsock_flush_works(vsock);
>>
>> Some questions after a quick glance:
>>
>> 1) It looks to me that the work could be queued from the path of
>> vsock_transport_cancel_pkt() . Is that synchronized here?
>>
> Both virtio_transport_send_pkt() and vsock_transport_cancel_pkt() can
> queue work from the upper layer (socket).
>
> Setting the_virtio_vsock to NULL, should synchronize, but after a careful look
> a rare issue could happen:
> we are setting the_virtio_vsock to NULL at the start of .remove() and we
> are freeing the object pointed by it at the end of .remove(), so
> virtio_transport_send_pkt() or vsock_transport_cancel_pkt() may still be
> running, accessing the object that we are freed.


Yes, that's my point.


>
> Should I use something like RCU to prevent this issue?
>
> virtio_transport_send_pkt() and vsock_transport_cancel_pkt()
> {
> rcu_read_lock();
> vsock = rcu_dereference(the_virtio_vsock_mutex);


RCU is probably a way to go. (Like what vhost_transport_send_pkt() did).


> ...
> rcu_read_unlock();
> }
>
> virtio_vsock_remove()
> {
> rcu_assign_pointer(the_virtio_vsock_mutex, NULL);
> synchronize_rcu();
>
> ...
>
> free(vsock);
> }
>
> Could there be a better approach?
>
>
>> 2) If we decide to flush after dev_vqs(), is tx_run/rx_run/event_run still
>> needed? It looks to me we've already done except that we need flush rx_work
>> in the end since send_pkt_work can requeue rx_work.
> The main reason of tx_run/rx_run/event_run is to prevent that a worker
> function is running while we are calling config->reset().
>
> E.g. if an interrupt comes between virtio_vsock_flush_works() and
> config->reset(), it can queue new works that can access the device while
> we are in config->reset().
>
> IMHO they are still needed.
>
> What do you think?


I mean could we simply do flush after reset once and without
tx_rx/rx_run tricks?

rest();

virtio_vsock_flush_work();

virtio_vsock_free_buf();


Thanks


>
>
> Thanks for your questions,
> Stefano

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-05-30 11:47    [W:0.090 / U:2.328 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site