Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 26 Jun 2023 13:13:21 +0200
Message-ID: <87ttuuv5m6.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
From:   Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
To:     Jaroslav Kysela <perex@perex.cz>
Cc:     Tuo Li <islituo@gmail.com>, tiwai@suse.com,
        alsa-devel@alsa-project.org,
        Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        baijiaju1990@outlook.com
Subject: Re: [BUG] ALSA: core: pcm_memory: a possible data race in do_alloc_pages()
In-Reply-To: <45445f57-0a73-59e6-6f3d-3983ce93a324@perex.cz>
References: <CADm8Tek6t0WedK+3Y6rbE5YEt19tML8BUL45N2ji4ZAz1KcN_A@mail.gmail.com>
        <877crqwvi1.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
        <CADm8Tenfy8joto5WLCqQWjfT8WimsbJgOss0hJe-ciyDRMrSXw@mail.gmail.com>
        <871qhywucj.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
        <4d0931bf-b356-6969-5aaf-b663d7f2b21a@perex.cz>
        <87wmzqv64o.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
        <45445f57-0a73-59e6-6f3d-3983ce93a324@perex.cz>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/27.2 Mule/6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 13:09:00 +0200,
Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
> 
> On 26. 06. 23 13:02, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 09:56:47 +0200,
> > Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
> >> 
> >> On 26. 06. 23 9:33, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 09:31:18 +0200,
> >>> Tuo Li wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Hello,
> >>>> 
> >>>> Thank you for your reply!
> >>> 
> >>> FWIW, the simplest fix would be something like below, just extending
> >>> the mutex coverage.  But it'll serialize the all calls, so it might
> >>> influence on the performance, while it's the safest way.
> >> 
> >> It may be better to update total_pcm_alloc_bytes before
> >> snd_dma_alloc_dir_pages() call and decrease this value when allocation
> >> fails to allow parallel allocations. Then the mutex can be held only
> >> for the total_pcm_alloc_bytes variable update.
> > 
> > Yes, it'd work.  But a tricky part is that the actual allocation size
> > can be bigger, and we need to correct the total_pcm_alloc_bytes after
> > the allocation result.  So the end result would be a patch like below,
> > which is a bit more complex than the previous simpler approach.  But
> > it might be OK.
> 
> The patch looks good, but it may be better to move the "post" variable
> updates to an inline function (mutex lock - update - mutex unlock) for
> a better readability.

Sounds like a good idea.  Let me cook later.


Takashi