On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 06:40:03PM +0530, madhuparnabhowmik10@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > From: Madhuparna Bhowmik <madhuparnabhowmik10@xxxxxxxxx> > > Use hlist_for_each_entry_srcu() instead of hlist_for_each_entry_rcu() > as it also checkes if the right lock is held. > Using hlist_for_each_entry_rcu() with a condition argument will not > report the cases where a SRCU protected list is traversed using > rcu_read_lock(). Hence, use hlist_for_each_entry_srcu(). > > Signed-off-by: Madhuparna Bhowmik <madhuparnabhowmik10@xxxxxxxxx> I queued both for testing and review, thank you! In particular, this one needs an ack by the maintainer. Thanx, Paul > --- > arch/x86/kvm/mmu/page_track.c | 6 ++++-- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/page_track.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/page_track.c > index a7bcde34d1f2..a9cd17625950 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/page_track.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/page_track.c > @@ -229,7 +229,8 @@ void kvm_page_track_write(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gpa_t gpa, const u8 *new, > return; > > idx = srcu_read_lock(&head->track_srcu); > - hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(n, &head->track_notifier_list, node) > + hlist_for_each_entry_srcu(n, &head->track_notifier_list, node, > + srcu_read_lock_held(&head->track_srcu)) > if (n->track_write) > n->track_write(vcpu, gpa, new, bytes, n); > srcu_read_unlock(&head->track_srcu, idx); > @@ -254,7 +255,8 @@ void kvm_page_track_flush_slot(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_memory_slot *slot) > return; > > idx = srcu_read_lock(&head->track_srcu); > - hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(n, &head->track_notifier_list, node) > + hlist_for_each_entry_srcu(n, &head->track_notifier_list, node, > + srcu_read_lock_held(&head->track_srcu)) > if (n->track_flush_slot) > n->track_flush_slot(kvm, slot, n); > srcu_read_unlock(&head->track_srcu, idx); > -- > 2.17.1 >
