Re: [PATCH 2/2] usbnet: Fix a race between usbnet_stop() and the BH

[Eugene Shatokhin <eugene.shatokhin@rosalab.ru>]

28.08.2015 11:55, Bjørn Mork пишет:
> Eugene Shatokhin <eugene.shatokhin@rosalab.ru> writes:
>
>> 25.08.2015 00:01, Bjørn Mork пишет:
>>> Eugene Shatokhin <eugene.shatokhin@rosalab.ru> writes:
>>>
>>>> The race may happen when a device (e.g. YOTA 4G LTE Modem) is
>>>> unplugged while the system is downloading a large file from the Net.
>>>>
>>>> Hardware breakpoints and Kprobes with delays were used to confirm that
>>>> the race does actually happen.
>>>>
>>>> The race is on skb_queue ('next' pointer) between usbnet_stop()
>>>> and rx_complete(), which, in turn, calls usbnet_bh().
>>>>
>>>> Here is a part of the call stack with the code where the changes to the
>>>> queue happen. The line numbers are for the kernel 4.1.0:
>>>>
>>>> *0 __skb_unlink (skbuff.h:1517)
>>>>       prev->next = next;
>>>> *1 defer_bh (usbnet.c:430)
>>>>       spin_lock_irqsave(&list->lock, flags);
>>>>       old_state = entry->state;
>>>>       entry->state = state;
>>>>       __skb_unlink(skb, list);
>>>>       spin_unlock(&list->lock);
>>>>       spin_lock(&dev->done.lock);
>>>>       __skb_queue_tail(&dev->done, skb);
>>>>       if (dev->done.qlen == 1)
>>>>           tasklet_schedule(&dev->bh);
>>>>       spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->done.lock, flags);
>>>> *2 rx_complete (usbnet.c:640)
>>>>       state = defer_bh(dev, skb, &dev->rxq, state);
>>>>
>>>> At the same time, the following code repeatedly checks if the queue is
>>>> empty and reads these values concurrently with the above changes:
>>>>
>>>> *0  usbnet_terminate_urbs (usbnet.c:765)
>>>>       /* maybe wait for deletions to finish. */
>>>>       while (!skb_queue_empty(&dev->rxq)
>>>>           && !skb_queue_empty(&dev->txq)
>>>>           && !skb_queue_empty(&dev->done)) {
>>>>               schedule_timeout(msecs_to_jiffies(UNLINK_TIMEOUT_MS));
>>>>               set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
>>>>               netif_dbg(dev, ifdown, dev->net,
>>>>                     "waited for %d urb completions\n", temp);
>>>>       }
>>>> *1  usbnet_stop (usbnet.c:806)
>>>>       if (!(info->flags & FLAG_AVOID_UNLINK_URBS))
>>>>           usbnet_terminate_urbs(dev);
>>>>
>>>> As a result, it is possible, for example, that the skb is removed from
>>>> dev->rxq by __skb_unlink() before the check
>>>> "!skb_queue_empty(&dev->rxq)" in usbnet_terminate_urbs() is made. It is
>>>> also possible in this case that the skb is added to dev->done queue
>>>> after "!skb_queue_empty(&dev->done)" is checked. So
>>>> usbnet_terminate_urbs() may stop waiting and return while dev->done
>>>> queue still has an item.
>>>
>>> Exactly what problem will that result in?  The tasklet_kill() will wait
>>> for the processing of the single element done queue, and everything will
>>> be fine.  Or?
>>
>> Given enough time, what prevents defer_bh() from calling
>> tasklet_schedule(&dev->bh) *after* usbnet_stop() calls tasklet_kill()?
>>
>> Consider the following situation (assuming '&&' are changed to '||' in
>> that while loop in usbnet_terminate_urbs() as they should be):
>>
>> CPU0                            CPU1
>> usbnet_stop()                   defer_bh() with list == dev->rxq
>>    usbnet_terminate_urbs()
>>                                  __skb_unlink() removes the last
>>                                  skb from dev->rxq.
>>                                  dev->rxq, dev->txq and dev->done
>>                                  are now empty.
>>    while (!skb_queue_empty()...)
>>      The loop ends because all 3
>>      queues are now empty.
>>
>>    usbnet_terminate_urbs() ends.
>>
>> usbnet_stop() continues:
>>    usbnet_status_stop(dev);
>>    ...
>>    del_timer_sync (&dev->delay);
>>    tasklet_kill (&dev->bh);
>>                                  __skb_queue_tail(&dev->done, skb);
>>                                  if (dev->done.qlen == 1)
>>                                    tasklet_schedule(&dev->bh);
>>
>> The BH is scheduled at this point, which is not what was intended. The
>> race window is small, but still.
>
> I guess you are right.  At least I cannot prove that you are not :)
>
> There is a bit too much complexity involved here for me...

:-)

Yes, it is quite complex.

I admit, it was easier for me to find the races in usbnet (the tools 
like KernelStrider and RaceHound do the dirty work) than to analyze 
their consequences. The latter often requires some time and effort, and 
so it did this time.

Well, any objections to this patch?

Regards,

Eugene