홍신 shin hong
2010-Aug-17 12:51 UTC
[Ocfs2-devel] BUG? a racy code at o2hb_heartbeat_group_drop_item()
Hello. I am reporting an atomic instructions usage which seem be racy at fs/ocfs2/cluster/heartbeat.c in Linux 2.6.35. I am reporting this issue while I read the recent code. Since I do not have much background, I am not certain whether it is correct or not. But I hope this report is helpful. Please examine the code. In o2hb_heartbeat_group_drop_item(), there are following codes: 1626 if (atomic_read(®->hr_steady_iterations) != 0) { 1627 atomic_set(®->hr_steady_iterations, 0); It first checks ®->hr_steady_iterations and then updates its value. In the case where other threads manipulate the same ®->hr_steady_iterations concurrently, race condition might be possible. I think it would be better to guarantee consecutive executions of read and write by special purposed atomic operations (e.g. atomic_xchg) Please examine the issue and let me know your opinion. Thank you. Sincerely Shin Hong
Sunil Mushran
2010-Aug-17 17:31 UTC
[Ocfs2-devel] BUG? a racy code at o2hb_heartbeat_group_drop_item()
On 08/17/2010 05:51 AM, ?? shin hong wrote:> Hello. I am reporting an atomic instructions usage > which seem be racy at fs/ocfs2/cluster/heartbeat.c in Linux 2.6.35. > > I am reporting this issue while I read the recent code. > Since I do not have much background, I am not certain whether it is > correct or not. > But I hope this report is helpful. Please examine the code. > > In o2hb_heartbeat_group_drop_item(), there are following codes: > > 1626 if (atomic_read(®->hr_steady_iterations) != 0) { > 1627 atomic_set(®->hr_steady_iterations, 0); > > > It first checks®->hr_steady_iterations and then updates its value. > > In the case where other threads manipulate the same > ®->hr_steady_iterations concurrently, > race condition might be possible. > > I think it would be better to guarantee consecutive executions of > read and write by special purposed atomic operations (e.g. atomic_xchg) > > Please examine the issue and let me know your opinion. Thank you. >This should be safe. The only thread that could be decrementing hr_steady_iterations is stopped before this check.
Possibly Parallel Threads
- [PATCH] Don't exist from cleaner_kthread and transaction_kthread until kthread_should_stop is true
- [PATCH v4 30/37] clk: seperate the locking from the implementation in nvkm_clk_update
- [bug report] ocfs2/cluster: Pin/unpin o2hb regions
- [PATCH] Btrfs: allow running defrag in parallel to administrative tasks
- [PATCH v2 20/22] clk: add nvkm_clk_reclock function