On 01.06.22 15:24, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 10:00:50AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 01.06.22 02:20, Tong Zhang wrote:
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 9:19 AM David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 27.04.22 22:51, Tong Zhang wrote:
>>>>> assert(dbs->acb) is meant to check the return value of io_func per
>>>>> documented in commit 6bee44ea34 ("dma: the passed io_func does not
>>>>> return NULL"). However, there is a chance that after calling
>>>>> aio_context_release(dbs->ctx); the dma_blk_cb function is called before
>>>>> the assertion and dbs->acb is set to NULL again at line 121. Thus when
>>>>> we run assert at line 181 it will fail.
>>>>>
>>>>> softmmu/dma-helpers.c:181: dma_blk_cb: Assertion `dbs->acb' failed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Reported-by: Francisco Londono <f.lond...@samsung.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tong Zhang <t.zha...@samsung.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> softmmu/dma-helpers.c | 2 +-
>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/softmmu/dma-helpers.c b/softmmu/dma-helpers.c
>>>>> index 7820fec54c..cb81017928 100644
>>>>> --- a/softmmu/dma-helpers.c
>>>>> +++ b/softmmu/dma-helpers.c
>>>>> @@ -177,8 +177,8 @@ static void dma_blk_cb(void *opaque, int ret)
>>>>> aio_context_acquire(dbs->ctx);
>>>>> dbs->acb = dbs->io_func(dbs->offset, &dbs->iov,
>>>>> dma_blk_cb, dbs, dbs->io_func_opaque);
>>>>> - aio_context_release(dbs->ctx);
>>>>> assert(dbs->acb);
>>>>> + aio_context_release(dbs->ctx);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> static void dma_aio_cancel(BlockAIOCB *acb)
>>>>
>>>> I'm fairly new to that code, but I wonder what prevents dma_blk_cb() to
>>>> run after you reshuffled the code?
>>>>
>>>
>>> IMO if the assert is to test whether io_func returns a non-NULL value
>>> shouldn't it be immediately after calling io_func.
>>> Also... as suggested by commit 6bee44ea346aed24e12d525daf10542d695508db
>>> > dma: the passed io_func does not return NULL
>>
>> Yes, but I just don't see how it would fix the assertion you document in
>> the patch description. The locking change to fix the assertion doesn't
>> make any sense to me, and most probably I am missing something important :)
>
> The other thread will invoke dma_blk_cb(), which modifies dbs->acb, when
> it can take the lock. Therefore dbs->acb may contain a value different
> from our io_func()'s return value by the time we perform the assertion
> check (that's the race).
>
> This patch makes sense to me. Can you rephrase your concern?
The locking is around dbs->io_func().
aio_context_acquire(dbs->ctx);
dbs->acb = dbs->io_func()
aio_context_release(dbs->ctx);
So where exactly would the lock that's now still held stop someone from
modifying dbs->acb = NULL at the beginning of the function, which seems
to be not protected by that lock?
Maybe I'm missing some locking magic due to the lock being a recursive lock.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
