In essence, yes, a fix is essentially already incorporated in the new 
interfaces. This works fine with the new 4-phase semantics since the first 
check (markInService happens the same time as the beginReq is called) and the 
deletion of the packet is only on the actual "accept" (endReq) on the other 
side, which is at least a delta cycle (potentially longer) later.

Andreas


-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 
Steve Reinhardt
Sent: 02 August 2011 16:58
To: gem5 Developer List
Subject: Re: [gem5-dev] Invalid read after free with caches

Good catch... unfortunately I don't see an easy answer.  I believe that
inside the markInService function, the MSHR code is looking at some of the
snoop status bits (see
http://repo.m5sim.org/gem5/file/353abb676fa2/src/mem/cache/mshr.cc#l224),
which are set by snoopers after sendTiming() is called.  Thus both setting
the data the code is looking at and deleting the packet happens after the
call to sendTIming() but before the return.

The only solutions I see are to either (1) change the allocation protocol
that says the target can delete the packet or (2) somehow separate the snoop
status bits from the packet so they can have a different lifetime.  Either
of these would be a pretty major change.

Can we find a way to incorporate a fix into Andreas's new port interface?
 Since we already have a pretty major overhaul in sight, maybe the best
solution might be to live with this for now (assuming it empirically isn't
causing any actual problems) and just make sure we take care of it then.

Steve

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Ali Saidi <[email protected]> wrote:

> I can't really come up with a solution I like to this problem. If I don't
> delete the packet in the down stream cache and put a hack in to delete it in
> the upstream cache that seems like a hack and violates the principle that
> the recipient is responsible for the packet. I could copy the packet in the
> sending cache and feed that into the markInService function, but I don't
> like that either.
> Suggestions?
>
>
_______________________________________________
gem5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev


-- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are 
confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, 
please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any 
other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any 
medium.  Thank you.

_______________________________________________
gem5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev

Reply via email to