From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Hidayath Khan" <hidayath@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, "Heiko Carstens" <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
"Vasily Gorbik" <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
"Alexander Gordeev" <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
"Christian Borntraeger" <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2 1/2] net/smc: stop killed, freed and out_of_sync sharing a byte
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2026 07:47:01 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260821074702.40FEB1F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260820074642.966856-2-hidayath@linux.ibm.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
Pre-existing issues:
- [High] Concurrent Read-Modify-Write data race on `struct smc_link_group` bitfields (`sync_err`, `terminating`, `freeing`).
- [High] Read-modify-write (RMW) data race on `conn_state_flags` and `prod_flags` bitfields in `struct smc_connection`.
--
--- Patch [1]: [PATCH net v2 1/2] net/smc: stop killed, freed and out_of_sync sharing a byte ---
commit a4fa7f6a3c11e3e694e6c9235dfa2ed1bd680cdf
Author: Hidayath Khan <hidayath@linux.ibm.com>
net/smc: stop killed, freed and out_of_sync sharing a byte
The commit changes three connection state flags from single-bit bitfields to
separate u8 fields. This prevents read-modify-write data races between
process context and the receive tasklet.
> diff --git a/net/smc/smc.h b/net/smc/smc.h
> index 52145df83f6e7..427b6d63b9931 100644
> --- a/net/smc/smc.h
> +++ b/net/smc/smc.h
> @@ -277,9 +277,9 @@ struct smc_connection {
> * 0 for SMC-R, 32 for SMC-D
> */
> u64 peer_token; /* SMC-D token of peer */
> - u8 killed : 1; /* abnormal termination */
> - u8 freed : 1; /* normal termination */
> - u8 out_of_sync : 1; /* out of sync with peer */
> + u8 killed; /* abnormal termination */
> + u8 freed; /* normal termination */
> + u8 out_of_sync; /* out of sync with peer */
> };
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but does a similar RMW data race exist for the
conn_state_flags and prod_flags bitfields embedded in struct smc_connection?
These bitfields are defined in net/smc/smc.h:
struct smc_cdc_conn_state_flags {
#if defined(__BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD)
u8 peer_done_writing : 1;
u8 peer_conn_closed : 1;
u8 peer_conn_abort : 1;
Process context modifies these fields holding only lock_sock(), which doesn't
disable softirqs. For instance, smc_close_wr() in net/smc/smc_close.c sets
peer_done_writing = 1:
conn->local_tx_ctrl.conn_state_flags.peer_done_writing = 1;
And smc_tx_consumer_update() in net/smc/smc_tx.c sets write_blocked = 0:
conn->local_rx_ctrl.prod_flags.write_blocked = 0;
Meanwhile, tasklet context modifies the same bytes. smc_cdc_msg_validate()
in net/smc/smc_cdc.c sets peer_conn_abort = 1 under send_lock:
conn->local_tx_ctrl.conn_state_flags.peer_conn_abort = 1;
And smc_cdc_msg_to_host() writes the entire prod_flags byte.
Since lock_sock() does not serialize with bh_lock_sock() or send_lock, could a
softirq interrupt the process context's RMW operation, resulting in dropped
connection state changes or stalled connections when the stale byte is written
back?
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but are there similar data races in
struct smc_link_group in net/smc/smc_core.h?
The sync_err, terminating, and freeing flags share a single byte:
struct smc_link_group {
...
u8 sync_err : 1;
u8 terminating : 1;
u8 freeing : 1;
...
};
Could a read-modify-write data race occur here since they are modified from
different contexts without a common lock?
For example, smc_clc_wait_msg() in net/smc/smc_clc.c sets sync_err = 1
holding only the socket lock:
smc->conn.lgr->sync_err = 1;
While __smc_lgr_terminate() in net/smc/smc_core.c sets terminating = 1
without holding any link group lock:
lgr->terminating = 1;
And smc_lgr_terminate_sched() sets freeing = 1 under smc_lgr_list.lock:
lgr->freeing = 1;
If an RMW operation is interrupted, could the terminating flag update be lost,
potentially leading to __smc_lgr_terminate() executing twice concurrently and
causing a double-free of the link group?
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260820074642.966856-1-hidayath@linux.ibm.com?part=1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-21 7:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-20 7:46 [PATCH net v2 0/2] net/smc: fix use-after-free in smc_rx_pipe_buf_release() Hidayath Khan
2026-08-20 7:46 ` [PATCH net v2 1/2] net/smc: stop killed, freed and out_of_sync sharing a byte Hidayath Khan
2026-08-21 7:47 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-08-20 7:46 ` [PATCH net v2 2/2] net/smc: fix use-after-free in smc_rx_pipe_buf_release() Hidayath Khan
2026-08-21 7:47 ` sashiko-bot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260821074702.40FEB1F000E9@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=agordeev@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=borntraeger@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=hidayath@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox