From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@cisco.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@infradead.org>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Andreas Voellmy <andreas.voellmy@yale.edu>,
"Junchang(Jason) Wang" <junchang.wang@yale.edu>,
Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] epoll: prevent missed events on EPOLL_CTL_MOD
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2013 09:45:50 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1357148750.21409.17169.camel@edumazet-glaptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130101235605.GA17168@dcvr.yhbt.net>
On Tue, 2013-01-01 at 23:56 +0000, Eric Wong wrote:
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > Please document the barrier that this mb() pairs with, and then give
> > an explanation for the fix in the commit message, and I'll happily
> > take it. Even if it's just duplicating the comments above the
> > wq_has_sleeper() function, except modified for the ep_modify() case.
>
> Hopefully my explanation is correct and makes sense below,
> I think both effects of the barrier are needed
>
> > Of course, it would be good to get verification from Jason and Andreas
> > that the alternate patch also works for them.
>
> Jason just confirmed it.
>
> ------------------------------- 8< ----------------------------
> From 02f43757d04bb6f2786e79eecf1cfa82e6574379 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net>
> Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 21:20:27 +0000
> Subject: [PATCH] epoll: prevent missed events on EPOLL_CTL_MOD
>
> EPOLL_CTL_MOD sets the interest mask before calling f_op->poll() to
> ensure events are not missed. Since the modifications to the interest
> mask are not protected by the same lock as ep_poll_callback, we need to
> ensure the change is visible to other CPUs calling ep_poll_callback.
>
> We also need to ensure f_op->poll() has an up-to-date view of past
> events which occured before we modified the interest mask. So this
> barrier also pairs with the barrier in wq_has_sleeper().
>
> This should guarantee either ep_poll_callback or f_op->poll() (or both)
> will notice the readiness of a recently-ready/modified item.
>
> This issue was encountered by Andreas Voellmy and Junchang(Jason) Wang in:
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1408782/
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net>
> Cc: Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@cisco.com>
> Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
> Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
> Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
> Cc: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>
> Cc: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
> Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@infradead.org>
> Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
> Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Andreas Voellmy <andreas.voellmy@yale.edu>
> Tested-by: "Junchang(Jason) Wang" <junchang.wang@yale.edu>
> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
> ---
> fs/eventpoll.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/eventpoll.c b/fs/eventpoll.c
> index cd96649..39573ee 100644
> --- a/fs/eventpoll.c
> +++ b/fs/eventpoll.c
> @@ -1285,7 +1285,7 @@ static int ep_modify(struct eventpoll *ep, struct epitem *epi, struct epoll_even
> * otherwise we might miss an event that happens between the
> * f_op->poll() call and the new event set registering.
> */
> - epi->event.events = event->events;
> + epi->event.events = event->events; /* need barrier below */
> pt._key = event->events;
> epi->event.data = event->data; /* protected by mtx */
> if (epi->event.events & EPOLLWAKEUP) {
> @@ -1296,6 +1296,26 @@ static int ep_modify(struct eventpoll *ep, struct epitem *epi, struct epoll_even
> }
>
> /*
> + * The following barrier has two effects:
> + *
> + * 1) Flush epi changes above to other CPUs. This ensures
> + * we do not miss events from ep_poll_callback if an
> + * event occurs immediately after we call f_op->poll().
> + * We need this because we did not take ep->lock while
> + * changing epi above (but ep_poll_callback does take
> + * ep->lock).
> + *
> + * 2) We also need to ensure we do not miss _past_ events
> + * when calling f_op->poll(). This barrier also
> + * pairs with the barrier in wq_has_sleeper (see
> + * comments for wq_has_sleeper).
> + *
> + * This barrier will now guarantee ep_poll_callback or f_op->poll
> + * (or both) will notice the readiness of an item.
> + */
> + smp_mb();
> +
> + /*
> * Get current event bits. We can safely use the file* here because
> * its usage count has been increased by the caller of this function.
> */
> --
> Eric Wong
First, thanks for working on this issue.
It seems the real problem is the epi->event.events = event->events;
which is done without taking ep->lock
While a smp_mb() could reduce the race window, I believe there is still
a race, and the following patch would close it.
diff --git a/fs/eventpoll.c b/fs/eventpoll.c
index be56b21..25e5c53 100644
--- a/fs/eventpoll.c
+++ b/fs/eventpoll.c
@@ -1313,7 +1313,10 @@ static int ep_modify(struct eventpoll *ep, struct epitem *epi, struct epoll_even
* otherwise we might miss an event that happens between the
* f_op->poll() call and the new event set registering.
*/
+ spin_lock_irq(&ep->lock);
epi->event.events = event->events;
+ spin_unlock_irq(&ep->lock);
+
pt._key = event->events;
epi->event.data = event->data; /* protected by mtx */
if (epi->event.events & EPOLLWAKEUP) {
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-01-02 17:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 53+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-12-28 1:45 ppoll() stuck on POLLIN while TCP peer is sending Eric Wong
2012-12-28 7:06 ` Eric Wong
2012-12-29 11:34 ` Eric Wong
2012-12-31 13:21 ` [PATCH] poll: prevent missed events if _qproc is NULL Eric Wong
2012-12-31 23:24 ` Eric Wong
2013-01-01 16:58 ` Junchang(Jason) Wang
2013-01-01 18:42 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-01-01 21:00 ` Eric Wong
2013-01-01 21:17 ` Eric Wong
2013-01-01 22:53 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-01-01 23:21 ` Junchang(Jason) Wang
2013-01-01 23:56 ` [PATCH] epoll: prevent missed events on EPOLL_CTL_MOD Eric Wong
2013-01-02 17:45 ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2013-01-02 18:40 ` Eric Wong
2013-01-02 19:03 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-01-02 19:32 ` Eric Wong
2013-01-02 22:08 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-01-02 21:16 ` Eric Wong
2013-01-02 20:08 ` ppoll() stuck on POLLIN while TCP peer is sending Eric Wong
2013-01-02 20:47 ` Eric Wong
2013-01-03 13:41 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-01-03 18:32 ` Eric Wong
2013-01-03 23:45 ` Eric Wong
2013-01-04 0:26 ` Eric Wong
2013-01-04 3:52 ` Eric Wong
2013-01-04 16:01 ` Mel Gorman
2013-01-04 17:15 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-01-04 17:59 ` Eric Wong
2013-01-05 1:07 ` Eric Wong
2013-01-06 12:07 ` Eric Wong
2013-01-07 12:25 ` Mel Gorman
2013-01-07 22:38 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-01-08 0:21 ` Eric Wong
2013-01-07 22:38 ` Eric Wong
2013-01-08 20:14 ` Eric Wong
2013-01-08 22:43 ` Mel Gorman
2013-01-08 23:23 ` Eric Wong
2013-01-09 2:14 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-01-09 2:32 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-01-09 2:54 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-01-09 3:55 ` Eric Wong
2013-01-09 8:42 ` Eric Wong
2013-01-09 8:51 ` Eric Wong
2013-01-09 13:42 ` Mel Gorman
2013-01-09 13:37 ` Mel Gorman
2013-01-09 13:50 ` Mel Gorman
2013-01-10 9:25 ` Eric Wong
2013-01-10 19:42 ` Mel Gorman
2013-01-10 20:03 ` Eric Wong
2013-01-10 20:58 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-01-11 0:51 ` Eric Wong
2013-01-11 9:30 ` Mel Gorman
2013-01-09 21:29 ` Eric Wong
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=1357148750.21409.17169.camel@edumazet-glaptop \
--to=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andreas.voellmy@yale.edu \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=davidel@xmailserver.org \
--cc=hans.verkuil@cisco.com \
--cc=hdegoede@redhat.com \
--cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
--cc=junchang.wang@yale.edu \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mchehab@infradead.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=normalperson@yhbt.net \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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