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:   Tue, 20 Aug 2019 19:16:49 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc:     John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 4/9] printk-rb: initialize new descriptors as
 invalid
Message-ID: <20190820101649.GC14137@jagdpanzerIV>
References: <20190807222634.1723-1-john.ogness@linutronix.de>
 <20190807222634.1723-5-john.ogness@linutronix.de>
 <20190820092337.cudkfdfhsu44vlhh@pathway.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190820092337.cudkfdfhsu44vlhh@pathway.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On (08/20/19 11:23), Petr Mladek wrote:
> > is no risk of the descriptor unexpectedly being determined as
> > valid due to dataring head overflowing/wrapping.
> 
> Please, provide more details about the solved race. Is it because
> some reader could have reference to an invalid (reused) descriptor?
> Can be these invalid descriptors be member of the list?

As far as I understand, such descriptors can be on the list:

	prb_reserve()
		assign_desc()
			// pick a new never used descr
			i = atomic_fetch_inc(&rb->desc_next_unused);
			d = &rb->descs[i]
			dataring_desc_init(&d->desc);
			return d
		buf = dataring_push()
			// the oldest data is reserved, but not commited
			ret = get_new_lpos()
			if (ret)
				dataring_desc_init()
				return NULL
		if (!buf)
			numlist_push()

_datablock_valid() has a "desc->begin_lpos == desc->next_lpos" check.

	-ss