[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] IRQ: fix incorrect logic in __clear_irq_vector

>>> On 12.08.11 at 15:13, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 12/08/11 14:10, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> In the old code, tmp_mask is the cpu_and of cfg->cpu_mask and
>> cpu_online_map.  However, in the usual case of moving an IRQ from one
>> PCPU to another because the scheduler decides its a good idea,
>> cfg->cpu_mask and cfg->old_cpu_mask do not intersect.  This causes the
>> old cpu vector_irq table to keep the irq reference when it shouldn't.
>> This leads to a resource leak if a domain is shut down wile an irq has
>> a move pending, which results in Xen's create_irq() eventually failing
>> with -ENOSPC when all vector_irq tables are full of stale references.
>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> diff -r 1f08b380d438 -r fa051d11b3de xen/arch/x86/irq.c
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/irq.c     Wed Aug 10 14:43:34 2011 +0100
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/irq.c     Fri Aug 12 14:09:52 2011 +0100
>> @@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ static void __clear_irq_vector(int irq)
>>      if (likely(!cfg->move_in_progress))
>>          return;
>> -    for_each_cpu_mask(cpu, tmp_mask) {
>> +    for_each_cpu_mask(cpu, cfg->old_cpu_mask) {

I think you rather want

    cpus_and(tmp_mask, cfg->old_cpu_mask, cpu_online_map);

before the loop, and keep the looping on tmp_mask. Otherwise you're
in danger of accessing offline CPUs' per-CPU data.

>>          for (vector = FIRST_DYNAMIC_VECTOR; vector <= LAST_DYNAMIC_VECTOR;
>>                                  vector++) {
>>              if (per_cpu(vector_irq, cpu)[vector] != irq)
> Apologies for the previous spam of this patch - I failed somewhat with
> patchbomb.
> 2 things come to mind.
> 1) This affects all versions of Xen since per-cpu idts were introduces,
> so is a candidate for backporting to all relevant trees.
> 2) What would the tradeoff be with adding a "u8 old_vector" to irq_cfg? 
> It would increase the size of the cfg structure but would avoid several
> pieces of code which loop through all dynamic vectors and check if the
> irq vector matches?

The size wouldn't grow (there's already a single bit at the end, so a
new u8 would just fill what is currently padding space). I didn't,
however, spot any other loop than the one here that would benefit.


Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.