public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
To: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>,
	Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>
Cc: v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 9p/client: fix data race on req->status
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2022 16:19:01 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3368929.hG1Ktuj5m1@silver> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221205124756.426350-1-asmadeus@codewreck.org>

On Monday, December 5, 2022 1:47:56 PM CET Dominique Martinet wrote:
> KCSAN reported a race between writing req->status in p9_client_cb and
> accessing it in p9_client_rpc's wait_event.
> 
> Accesses to req itself is protected by the data barrier (writing req
> fields, write barrier, writing status // reading status, read barrier,
> reading other req fields), but status accesses themselves apparently
> also must be annotated properly with WRITE_ONCE/READ_ONCE when we
> access it without locks.
> 
> Follows:
>  - error paths writing status in various threads all can notify
> p9_client_rpc, so these all also need WRITE_ONCE
>  - there's a similar read loop in trans_virtio for zc case that also
> needs READ_ONCE
>  - other reads in trans_fd should be protected by the trans_fd lock and
> lists state machine, as corresponding writers all are within trans_fd
> and should be under the same lock. If KCSAN complains on them we likely
> will have something else to fix as well, so it's better to leave them
> unmarked and look again if required.
> 
> Reported-by: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>
> Suggested-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>

I must have missed the prior discussion, but looking at the suggested
solution: if there is no lock, then adding READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() would
not fix cross-CPU issues, as those would not have a memory barrier in that
case.

Shouldn't that therefore rather be at least smp_load_acquire() and
smp_store_release() at such places instead?

Best regards,
Christian Schoenebeck




  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-12-05 15:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-12-05 12:47 [PATCH] 9p/client: fix data race on req->status Dominique Martinet
2022-12-05 13:06 ` Marco Elver
2022-12-05 15:19 ` Christian Schoenebeck [this message]
2022-12-05 22:27   ` Dominique Martinet
2022-12-08 15:51     ` Christian Schoenebeck
2022-12-08 23:50       ` Dominique Martinet
2022-12-09 13:45         ` Christian Schoenebeck
2022-12-09 21:12           ` Dominique Martinet
2022-12-12 13:39             ` Christian Schoenebeck

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=3368929.hG1Ktuj5m1@silver \
    --to=linux_oss@crudebyte.com \
    --cc=asmadeus@codewreck.org \
    --cc=elver@google.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=naresh.kamboju@linaro.org \
    --cc=v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net \
    /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