Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 14 Jan 2019 22:55:59 -0800
From:   Myungho Jung <mhjungk@gmail.com>
To:     Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>
Cc:     "Yan, Zheng" <zyan@redhat.com>, Sage Weil <sage@redhat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Ceph Development <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libceph: protect pending flags in ceph_con_keepalive()
Message-ID: <20190115065558.GA7165@myunghoj-Precision-5530>
References: <20181227190842.GA19565@myunghoj-Precision-5530>
 <CAOi1vP9G=-ZLBKH6Y5MoDRUjX4YkN6GUWKm1=fnM02odQX8GWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190103035027.GA26674@myunghoj-Precision-5530>
 <CAOi1vP-FC+X+DeLMBcefYuSjxzLgAsxQg+RNskaZsUvVbmXuYA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAOi1vP-FC+X+DeLMBcefYuSjxzLgAsxQg+RNskaZsUvVbmXuYA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 09:37:25PM +0100, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 4:50 AM Myungho Jung <mhjungk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I reproduced on vm using syzkaller utils and verified the fix by syzbot.
> 
> Hi Myungho,
> 
> I think this might be a better fix:
> 
> diff --git a/net/ceph/messenger.c b/net/ceph/messenger.c
> index d5718284db57..c5f5313e3537 100644
> --- a/net/ceph/messenger.c
> +++ b/net/ceph/messenger.c
> @@ -3205,10 +3205,11 @@ void ceph_con_keepalive(struct ceph_connection *con)
>  {
>         dout("con_keepalive %p\n", con);
>         mutex_lock(&con->mutex);
> +       con_flag_set(con, CON_FLAG_KEEPALIVE_PENDING);
>         clear_standby(con);
>         mutex_unlock(&con->mutex);
> -       if (con_flag_test_and_set(con, CON_FLAG_KEEPALIVE_PENDING) == 0 &&
> -           con_flag_test_and_set(con, CON_FLAG_WRITE_PENDING) == 0)
> +
> +       if (con_flag_test_and_set(con, CON_FLAG_WRITE_PENDING) == 0)
>                 queue_con(con);
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(ceph_con_keepalive);
> 
> WRITE_PENDING can be set without con->mutex held from socket callbacks.
> This is the reason we use atomic bit ops here, so testing WRITE_PENDING
> under the lock didn't make sense to me.
> 
> At the same time, KEEPALIVE_PENDING could have been a non-atomic flag.
> I spent some time trying to make sense of conditioning queue_con() call
> on the previous value of KEEPALIVE_PENDING and couldn't see any, so I'm
> setting it with con_flag_set(), making ceph_con_keepalive() symmetric
> with ceph_con_send().
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>                 Ilya

Hi Ilya,

Yes, it looks clear and makes sense to have an atomic operation in if statement
but it still triggers warning. KEEPALIVE_PENDING should be set after
clear_standby() because con_fault() can be called right before acquiring the
lock here which sets the flag in standby state. I tesed the change with syzbot
and confirmed there was no warning.

Thanks,
Myungho