Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-164961-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 02:01:20 -0400
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>
Cc: Mike Christie <michael.christie@oracle.com>,
	Edward Adam Davis <eadavis@qq.com>,
	syzbot+98edc2df894917b3431f@syzkaller.appspotmail.com,
	jasowang@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, virtualization@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH next] vhost_task: after freeing vhost_task it should not
 be accessed in vhost_task_fn
Message-ID: <20240501020057-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
References: <b959b82a-510f-45c0-9e06-acf526c2f4a1@oracle.com>
 <20240501001544.1606-1-hdanton@sina.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240501001544.1606-1-hdanton@sina.com>

On Wed, May 01, 2024 at 08:15:44AM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:23:04AM -0500, Mike Christie wrote:
> > On 4/30/24 8:05 AM, Edward Adam Davis wrote:
> > >  static int vhost_task_fn(void *data)
> > >  {
> > >  	struct vhost_task *vtsk = data;
> > > @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ static int vhost_task_fn(void *data)
> > >  			schedule();
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > > -	mutex_lock(&vtsk->exit_mutex);
> > > +	mutex_lock(&exit_mutex);
> > >  	/*
> > >  	 * If a vhost_task_stop and SIGKILL race, we can ignore the SIGKILL.
> > >  	 * When the vhost layer has called vhost_task_stop it's already stopped
> > > @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ static int vhost_task_fn(void *data)
> > >  		vtsk->handle_sigkill(vtsk->data);
> > >  	}
> > >  	complete(&vtsk->exited);
> > > -	mutex_unlock(&vtsk->exit_mutex);
> > > +	mutex_unlock(&exit_mutex);
> > >  
> > 
> > Edward, thanks for the patch. I think though I just needed to swap the
> > order of the calls above.
> > 
> > Instead of:
> > 
> > complete(&vtsk->exited);
> > mutex_unlock(&vtsk->exit_mutex);
> > 
> > it should have been:
> > 
> > mutex_unlock(&vtsk->exit_mutex);
> > complete(&vtsk->exited);
> 
> JFYI Edward did it [1]
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/tencent_546DA49414E876EEBECF2C78D26D242EE50A@qq.com/

and then it failed testing.

> > 
> > If my analysis is correct, then Michael do you want me to resubmit a
> > patch on top of your vhost branch or resubmit the entire patchset?