On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 04:43:39PM +0800, Tuo Li wrote:
The variables gb_tty->port.close_delay and gb_tty->port.closing_wait are ofter accessed together while holding the lock gb_tty->port.mutex. Here is an example in set_serial_info():
mutex_lock(&gb_tty->port.mutex); ... gb_tty->port.close_delay = close_delay; gb_tty->port.closing_wait = closing_wait; ... mutex_unlock(&gb_tty->port.mutex);
However, they are accessed without holding the lock gb_tty->port.mutex when are accessed in get_serial_info():
ss->close_delay = jiffies_to_msecs(gb_tty->port.close_delay) / 10; ss->closing_wait = gb_tty->port.closing_wait == ASYNC_CLOSING_WAIT_NONE ? ASYNC_CLOSING_WAIT_NONE : jiffies_to_msecs(gb_tty->port.closing_wait) / 10;
In my opinion, this may be a harmful race, because ss->close_delay can be inconsistent with ss->closing_wait if gb_tty->port.close_delay and gb_tty->port.closing_wait are updated by another thread after the assignment to ss->close_delay.
And how can that happen?
Also you have trailing whitespace in your changelog text :(
Besides, the select operator may return wrong value if gb_tty->port.closing_wait is updated right after the condition is calculated.
To fix this possible data-inconsistency caused by data race, a lock and unlock pair is added when accessing different fields of gb_tty->port.
Reported-by: BassCheck bass@buaa.edu.cn
As per the documentation for research tools like this, you need to explain how this was tested.
thanks,
greg k-h