* [PATCH v1 1/1] malloc/mp: fix wait condition handling
@ 2024-07-12 11:41 Anatoly Burakov
2024-07-23 13:42 ` Thomas Monjalon
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Anatoly Burakov @ 2024-07-12 11:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dev, Tyler Retzlaff; +Cc: stable
From coverity's point of view, it is theoretically possible to have an
infinite wait on a wait condition because while we do check for timeout,
we do not check for whether the event we are waiting for has already
occurred by the time we get to the first cond_wait call (in this case,
it's state of memory request list entry's state being set to COMPLETE).
This can't really happen as the only time a wait condition is triggered
is when we are receiving a memory event (so the entry we are waiting on
cannot change before wait condition is triggered because it's protected
by a mutex), so either we receive an event and modify entry state, or we
exit wait on a timeout and do not care about request state. However, it's
better to keep coverity happy.
Coverity issue: 425709
Fixes: 07dcbfe0101f ("malloc: support multiprocess memory hotplug")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org
Signed-off-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
---
lib/eal/common/malloc_mp.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/lib/eal/common/malloc_mp.c b/lib/eal/common/malloc_mp.c
index 2d39b0716f..9765277f5d 100644
--- a/lib/eal/common/malloc_mp.c
+++ b/lib/eal/common/malloc_mp.c
@@ -756,7 +756,8 @@ request_to_primary(struct malloc_mp_req *user_req)
do {
ret = pthread_cond_timedwait(&entry->cond,
&mp_request_list.lock, &ts);
- } while (ret != 0 && ret != ETIMEDOUT);
+ } while ((ret != 0 && ret != ETIMEDOUT) &&
+ entry->state == REQ_STATE_ACTIVE);
if (entry->state != REQ_STATE_COMPLETE) {
EAL_LOG(ERR, "Request timed out");
--
2.43.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] malloc/mp: fix wait condition handling
2024-07-12 11:41 [PATCH v1 1/1] malloc/mp: fix wait condition handling Anatoly Burakov
@ 2024-07-23 13:42 ` Thomas Monjalon
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Monjalon @ 2024-07-23 13:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Anatoly Burakov; +Cc: dev, Tyler Retzlaff, stable
12/07/2024 13:41, Anatoly Burakov:
> From coverity's point of view, it is theoretically possible to have an
> infinite wait on a wait condition because while we do check for timeout,
> we do not check for whether the event we are waiting for has already
> occurred by the time we get to the first cond_wait call (in this case,
> it's state of memory request list entry's state being set to COMPLETE).
>
> This can't really happen as the only time a wait condition is triggered
> is when we are receiving a memory event (so the entry we are waiting on
> cannot change before wait condition is triggered because it's protected
> by a mutex), so either we receive an event and modify entry state, or we
> exit wait on a timeout and do not care about request state. However, it's
> better to keep coverity happy.
>
> Coverity issue: 425709
> Fixes: 07dcbfe0101f ("malloc: support multiprocess memory hotplug")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>
> Signed-off-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
Applied, thanks.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-07-23 13:42 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2024-07-12 11:41 [PATCH v1 1/1] malloc/mp: fix wait condition handling Anatoly Burakov
2024-07-23 13:42 ` Thomas Monjalon
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).