On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 03:44:09PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:33:20AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 09:29:49AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:41:23 +0300, "Michael S. Tsirkin" 
> > > <m...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 02:55:15PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > > > > +/*
> > > > > + * Populate balloon_mapping->a_ops->freepage method to help 
> > > > > compaction on
> > > > > + * re-inserting an isolated page into the balloon page list.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > +void virtballoon_putbackpage(struct page *page)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +     spin_lock(&pages_lock);
> > > > > +     list_add(&page->lru, &vb_ptr->pages);
> > > > > +     spin_unlock(&pages_lock);
> > > > 
> > > > Could the following race trigger:
> > > > migration happens while module unloading is in progress,
> > > > module goes away between here and when the function
> > > > returns, then code for this function gets overwritten?
> > > > If yes we need locking external to module to prevent this.
> > > > Maybe add a spinlock to struct address_space?
> > > 
> > > The balloon module cannot be unloaded until it has leaked all its pages,
> > > so I think this is safe:
> > > 
> > >         static void remove_common(struct virtio_balloon *vb)
> > >         {
> > >           /* There might be pages left in the balloon: free them. */
> > >           while (vb->num_pages)
> > >                   leak_balloon(vb, vb->num_pages);
> > > 
> > > Cheers,
> > > Rusty.
> > 
> > I know I meant something else.
> > Let me lay this out:
> > 
> > CPU1 executes:
> > void virtballoon_putbackpage(struct page *page)
> > {
> >     spin_lock(&pages_lock);
> >     list_add(&page->lru, &vb_ptr->pages);
> >     spin_unlock(&pages_lock);
> > 
> > 
> >             at this point CPU2 unloads module:
> >                                             leak_balloon
> >                                             ......
> > 
> >             next CPU2 loads another module so code memory gets overwritten
> > 
> > now CPU1 executes the next instruction:
> > 
> > }
> > 
> > which would normally return to function's caller,
> > but it has been overwritten by CPU2 so we get corruption.
> > 
> > No?
> 
> At the point CPU2 is unloading the module, it will be kept looping at the
> snippet Rusty pointed out because the isolation / migration steps do not mess
> with 'vb->num_pages'. The driver will only unload after leaking the total 
> amount
> of balloon's inflated pages, which means (for this hypothetical case) CPU2 
> will
> wait until CPU1 finishes the putaback procedure.
> 

Yes but only until unlock finishes. The last return from function
is not guarded and can be overwritten.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to