On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 10:29 AM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 12:46 AM Muchun Song <songmuchun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > The in_atomic macro cannot always detect atomic context. In particular,
> > it cannot know about held spinlocks in non-preemptible kernels. Although,
> > there is no user call bpf_link_put() with holding spinlock now. Be the
> > safe side, we can avoid this in the feature.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
>
> This change seems unnecessary (or at least premature), as if we ever
> get a use case that does bpf_link_put() from under held spinlock, we
> should see a warning about that (and in that case I bet code can be
> rewritten to not hold spinlock during bpf_link_put()). But on the
> other hand it makes bpf_link_put() to follow the pattern of
> bpf_map_put(), which always defers the work, so I'm ok with this. As
> Song mentioned, this is not called from a performance-critical hot
> path, so doesn't matter all that much.
>
> Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@xxxxxx>
>
btw, you probably need to resubmit this patch as a non-RFC one for it
to be applied?..
> > kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 8 ++------
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> > index 178c147350f5..6347be0a5c82 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> > @@ -2345,12 +2345,8 @@ void bpf_link_put(struct bpf_link *link)
> > if (!atomic64_dec_and_test(&link->refcnt))
> > return;
> >
> > - if (in_atomic()) {
> > - INIT_WORK(&link->work, bpf_link_put_deferred);
> > - schedule_work(&link->work);
> > - } else {
> > - bpf_link_free(link);
> > - }
> > + INIT_WORK(&link->work, bpf_link_put_deferred);
> > + schedule_work(&link->work);
> > }
> >
> > static int bpf_link_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
> > --
> > 2.20.1
> >
