RE: [PATCH v2] hv_sock: Add support for delayed close
From: Dexuan Cui <decui@microsoft.com>
Date: 2019-05-16 17:16:46
Also in:
linux-hyperv, lkml
From: linux-hyperv-owner@vger.kernel.org [off-list ref] On Behalf Of Dexuan Cui Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 9:34 PM ...
Hi Sunil, To make it clear, your patch itself is good, and I was just talking about the next change we're going to make. Once we make the next change, IMO we need a further patch to schedule hvs_close_timeout() to the new single-threaded workqueue rather than the global "system_wq".
Next, we're going to remove the "channel->rescind" check in vmbus_hvsock_device_unregister() -- when doing that, IMO we need to fix a potential race revealed by the schedule_delayed_work() in this patch: When hvs_close_timeout() finishes, the "sk" struct has been freed, but vmbus_onoffer_rescind() -> channel->chn_rescind_callback(), i.e. hvs_close_connection(), may be still running and referencing the "chan" and "sk" structs (), which should no longer be referenced when hvs_close_timeout() finishes, i.e. "get_per_channel_state(chan)" is no longer safe. The problem is: currently there is no sync mechanism between vmbus_onoffer_rescind() and hvs_close_timeout(). The race is a real issue only after we remove the "channel->rescind" in vmbus_hvsock_device_unregister().
A correction: IMO the race is real even for the current code, i.e. without your patch: in vmbus_onoffer_rescind(), between we set channel->rescind and we call channel->chn_rescind_callback(), the channel may have been freed by vmbus_hvsock_device_unregister(). This race window is small and I guess that's why we never noticed it.
I guess we need to introduce a new single-threaded workqueue in the vmbus driver, and offload both vmbus_onoffer_rescind() and hvs_close_timeout() onto the new workqueue.
Thanks, -- Dexuan