From: Anton Volkov <avolkov@ispras.ru>
To: isdn@linux-pingi.de
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        ldv-project@linuxtesting.org, khoroshilov@ispras.ru
Subject: Possible race in hysdn.ko
Message-ID: <8178d591-2b1a-334d-fdd1-4c6b98abad72@ispras.ru>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 19:19:03 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1565
Lines: 40

Hello.

While searching for races in the Linux kernel I've come across
"drivers/isdn/hysdn/hysdn.ko" module. Here is a question that I came up
with while analysing results. Lines are given using the info from Linux
v4.12.

In hysdn_proclog.c file in put_log_buffer function a non-standard type
of synchronization is employed. It uses pd->del_lock as some kind of
semaphore (hysdn_proclog.c: lines 129 and 143). Consider the following
case:

Thread 1:                    Thread 2:
hysdn_log_write
-> hysdn_add_log
     -> put_log_buffer
          spin_lock()          hysdn_conf_open
          i = pd->del_lock++   -> hysdn_add_log
          spin_unlock()           -> put_log_buffer
          if (!i) <delete-loop>        spin_lock()
          pd->del_lock--               i = pd->del_lock++
                                       spin_unlock()
                                       if (!i) <delete-loop>
                                       pd->del_lock--

<delete-loop> - the loop that deletes unused buffer entries
(hysdn_proclog.c: lines 134-142).
pd->del_lock-- is not an atomic operation and is executed without any
locks. Thus it may interfere in the increment process of pd->del_lock in
another thread. There may be cases that lead to the inability of any
thread going through the <delete-loop>.

I see several possible solutions to this problem:
1) move the <delete-loop> under the spin_lock and delete
pd->del_lock synchronization;
2) wrap pd->del_lock-- with spin_lock protection.

What do you think should be done about it?

Thank you for your time.