On 15/07/2025 06:52, John Levon wrote:
Coverity reported:
CID 1611806: Concurrent data access violations (BAD_CHECK_OF_WAIT_COND)
A wait is performed without a loop. If there is a spurious wakeup, the
condition may not be satisfied.
Fix this by checking ->state for VFIO_PROXY_CLOSED in a loop.
Resolves: Coverity CID 1611806
Fixes: 0b3d881a ("vfio-user: implement message receive infrastructure")
Signed-off-by: John Levon <john.le...@nutanix.com>
Is this definitely the right patch? The v2 posted at
https://patchew.org/QEMU/20250711124500.1611628-1-john.le...@nutanix.com/
contains the updated commit message mentioning the rename of the
callback, whereas this one doesn't?
---
hw/vfio-user/proxy.c | 10 ++++++----
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/vfio-user/proxy.c b/hw/vfio-user/proxy.c
index c418954440..2275d3fe39 100644
--- a/hw/vfio-user/proxy.c
+++ b/hw/vfio-user/proxy.c
@@ -32,7 +32,6 @@ static void vfio_user_recycle(VFIOUserProxy *proxy,
VFIOUserMsg *msg);
static void vfio_user_recv(void *opaque);
static void vfio_user_send(void *opaque);
-static void vfio_user_cb(void *opaque);
static void vfio_user_request(void *opaque);
@@ -492,7 +491,7 @@ static void vfio_user_send(void *opaque)
}
}
-static void vfio_user_cb(void *opaque)
+static void vfio_user_close_cb(void *opaque)
{
VFIOUserProxy *proxy = opaque;
@@ -984,8 +983,11 @@ void vfio_user_disconnect(VFIOUserProxy *proxy)
* handler to run after the proxy fd handlers were
* deleted above.
*/
- aio_bh_schedule_oneshot(proxy->ctx, vfio_user_cb, proxy);
- qemu_cond_wait(&proxy->close_cv, &proxy->lock);
+ aio_bh_schedule_oneshot(proxy->ctx, vfio_user_close_cb, proxy);
+
+ while (proxy->state != VFIO_PROXY_CLOSED) {
+ qemu_cond_wait(&proxy->close_cv, &proxy->lock);
+ }
/* we now hold the only ref to proxy */
qemu_mutex_unlock(&proxy->lock);
ATB,
Mark.