On Wed, 2012-09-19 at 21:48 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:23:13PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > > On Wed, 2012-09-19 at 11:59 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > > > On 09/18/2012 06:16 AM, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > > @@ -92,6 +156,43 @@ irqfd_shutdown(struct work_struct *work) > > > > */ > > > > flush_work_sync(&irqfd->inject); > > > > > > > > + if (irqfd->resampler) { > > > > + struct _irqfd_resampler *resampler = irqfd->resampler; > > > > + struct kvm *kvm = resampler->kvm; > > > > + > > > > + mutex_lock(&kvm->irq_lock); > > > > + spin_lock_irq(&irqfd->kvm->irqfds.lock); > > > > + > > > > + list_del_rcu(&irqfd->resampler_list); > > > > + > > > > + /* > > > > + * On removal of the last irqfd in the resampler list, > > > > + * remove the resampler and unregister the irq ack > > > > + * notifier. It's possible to race the ack of the final > > > > + * injection here, so manually de-assert the gsi to avoid > > > > + * leaving an unmanaged, asserted interrupt line. > > > > + */ > > > > + if (list_empty(&resampler->irqfds)) { > > > > + list_del(&resampler->list); > > > > + __kvm_unregister_irq_ack_notifier(kvm, > > > > + &resampler->notifier); > > > > + kvm_set_irq(kvm, KVM_IRQFD_RESAMPLE_IRQ_SOURCE_ID, > > > > + resampler->notifier.gsi, 0); > > > > + kfree(resampler); > > > > > > Is this rcu safe? > > > > No it's not and unfortunately this also points out another race in > > trying to use a single source ID... > > > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + spin_unlock_irq(&irqfd->kvm->irqfds.lock); > > > > + mutex_unlock(&kvm->irq_lock); > > > > + > > > > + /* > > > > + * Both list_del_rcu & __kvm_unregister_irq_ack_notifier > > > > + * require an rcu grace period/ > > > > + */ > > > > + synchronize_rcu(); > > > > The kfree can't be done until here and we also have to assume that ack > > notifies are firing until here. That means that between the > > mutex_unlock and the end of synchronize_rcu another resampling irqfd can > > be registered, post an interrupt, and have it de-asserted by the wrong > > resampler. Maybe the conversion wasn't as clean as I first thought :( > > > Quite ugly to expose the internals this way. > > > > Yep. I don't know how to clean it up though; between all the different > > rcu operations and locks, it's a mess. Thanks, > > > > Alex > > Add another mutex for the resamplers, keep it during the whole > operation? This also removes the need for exposing the internals. > If you do pls document lock nesting rules. How does that hide the internals? Seems like we'd just wrap this in yet another mutex, but be largely the same. Thanks, Alex -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html