Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751854AbaKJHv5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Nov 2014 02:51:57 -0500 Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com ([209.85.212.172]:64186 "EHLO mail-wi0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750890AbaKJHv4 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Nov 2014 02:51:56 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20141106205644.GA31435@kroah.com> References: <20141106203832.GB30170@kroah.com> <20141106205644.GA31435@kroah.com> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 08:51:54 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: xX4eThQAa8ARLuH5iT2F5wPmDVE Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] n_tty: Add memory barrier to fix race condition in receive path From: Christian Riesch To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: =?UTF-8?B?TcOlbnMgUnVsbGfDpXJk?= , Jiri Slaby , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Peter Hurley , stable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 9:56 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 08:49:01PM +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote: >> Greg Kroah-Hartman writes: >> >> > On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 12:39:59PM +0100, Christian Riesch wrote: >> >> The current implementation of put_tty_queue() causes a race condition >> >> when re-arranged by the compiler. >> >> >> >> On my build with gcc 4.8.3, cross-compiling for ARM, the line >> >> >> >> *read_buf_addr(ldata, ldata->read_head++) = c; >> >> >> >> was re-arranged by the compiler to something like >> >> >> >> x = ldata->read_head >> >> ldata->read_head++ >> >> *read_buf_addr(ldata, x) = c; >> >> >> >> which causes a race condition. Invalid data is read if data is read >> >> before it is actually written to the read buffer. >> > >> > Really? A compiler can rearange things like that and expect things to >> > actually work? How is that valid? >> >> This is actually required by the C spec. There is a sequence point >> before a function call, after the arguments have been evaluated. Thus >> all side-effects, such as the post-increment, must be complete before >> the function is called, just like in the example. >> >> There is no "re-arranging" here. The code is simply wrong. > > Ah, ok, time to dig out the C spec... > > Anyway, because of this, no need for the wmb() calls, just rearrange the > logic and all should be good, right? Christian, can you test that > instead? I ran a test with the patch that I posted in my first email for the last 4 days. No communication errors occurred so the patch actually fixes my problem. I will run another test as suggested by Greg, just with rearranging the logic. Best regards, Christian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/