Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] binder: Refactor binder_node print synchronization

[Alice Ryhl]

On Thu, May 8, 2025 at 2:18 PM Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 05, 2025 at 09:42:32PM +0000, Tiffany Yang wrote:
> > +     if (node->proc)
> > +             binder_inner_proc_unlock(node->proc);
> > +     else
> > +             spin_unlock(&binder_dead_nodes_lock);
>
> I don't buy this logic. Imagine the following scenario:
>
> 1. print_binder_proc is called, and we loop over proc->nodes.
> 2. We call binder_inner_proc_unlock(node->proc).
> 3. On another thread, binder_deferred_release() is called.
> 4. The node is removed from proc->nodes and node->proc is set to NULL.
> 5. Back in print_next_binder_node_ilocked(), we now call
>    spin_lock(&binder_dead_nodes_lock) and return.
> 6. In print_binder_proc(), we think that we hold the proc lock, but
>    actually we hold the dead nodes lock instead. BOOM.
>
> What happens with the current code is that print_binder_proc() takes the
> proc lock again after the node was removed from proc->nodes, and then it
> exits the loop because rb_next(n) returns NULL when called on a node not
> in any rb-tree.

Oh, there's a v3 of this. Let me resend it there.

Alice