On Thu, 2019-11-14 at 15:43 -0300, Leonardo Bras wrote: > > If the kvm_put_kvm() you've moved actually caused the last > > reference > > to > > be dropped that would mean that our caller had passed us a kvm > > struct > > without holding a reference to it, and that would be a bug in our > > caller. > > > > So, there is no chance that between this function's kvm_get_kvm() > and > kvm_put_kvm(), another thread can decrease this reference counter? I am probably missing something here, could you please help me understand that? > > Or put another way, it would mean the mutex_lock() above could > > already > > be operating on a freed kvm struct. > > > > The kvm_get_kvm() prior to the anon_inode_getfd() is to account for > > the > > reference that's held by the `stt` struct, and dropped in > > kvm_spapr_tce_release(). > > > > So although this patch isn't wrong, the explanation is not > > accurate. > > > > cheers > > Kind regards Best regards,
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
