Re: [PATCH net-next] hv_netvsc: fix a race between netvsc_send() and netvsc_init_buf()

[Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>]

David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> writes:

> From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
> Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 13:15:53 +0200
>
>> David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> writes:
>> 
>>> From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
>>> Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 10:51:04 +0200
>>>
>>>> Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@microsoft.com> writes:
>>>> 
>>>>> Do we need ACCESS_ONCE() here to avoid check/use issues?
>>>>>
>>>> 
>>>> I think we don't: this is the only place in the function where we read
>>>> the variable so we'll get normal read. We're not trying to syncronize
>>>> with netvsc_init_buf() as that would require locking, if we read stale
>>>> NULL value after it was already updated on a different CPU we're fine,
>>>> we'll just return -EAGAIN.
>>>
>>> The concern is if we race with netvsc_destroy_buf() and this pointer
>>> becomes NULL after the test you are adding.
>> 
>> Thanks, this is interesting.
>> 
>> We may reach to netvsc_destroy_buf() by 3 pathes:
>> 
>> 1) cleanup path in netvsc_init_buf(). It is never called with
>> send_section_map being not NULL so it seems we're safe.
>> 
>> 2) from netvsc_remove() when the device is being removed. As far as I
>> understand we can't be on the transmit path after we call
>> unregister_netdev() so we're safe.
>> 
>> 3) from netvsc_change_mtu() and netvsc_set_channels(). These pathes are
>> specific to netvsc driver as basically we need to remove the device and
>> add it back to change mtu/number of channels. The underligning 'struct
>> net_device' stays but the rest is being removed and added back. On both
>> pathes we first call netvsc_close() which does netif_tx_disable() and as
>> far as I understand (I may be wrong) this guarantees that we won't be in
>> netvsc_send().
>> 
>> So *I think* that we can't ever free send_section_map while in
>> netvsc_send() and we can't even get to netvsc_send() after it is freed
>> but I may have missed something.
>
> Ok you may be right.
>
> Can't the device be taken down by asynchronous events as well?  For example
> if the peer end of the interface in the other guest disappears.

The device may be hot removed from host's side. In this case we follow
the following call chain:

... -> vmbus_device_unregister() -> ... -> vmbus_remove() -> netvsc_remove()

 and netvsc_remove() does netif_tx_disable(); unregister_netdev();
before calling rndis_filter_device_remove() leading to netvsc_destroy_buf().

So it seems we can't be in netvsc_send() when the device is
disappearing.

-- 
  Vitaly