On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 03:59:16PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> If we use the plain list_empty() we might not see the
> hlist_del_init_rcu() and therefore miss one member of the
> list.
>
> It fixes the following issue:
> $ unshare -m /usr/bin/sleep 10000 &
> $ mkdir -p foo/proc
> $ mount -t proc none foo/proc
> $ mount -t binfmt_misc none foo/proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc
> $ umount -l foo/proc
> $ rmdir foo/proc
> rmdir: failed to remove ‘foo/proc’: Device or resource busy
>
> rmdir fails because the last entry in the RCU list, "proc", was
> not propagated as list_empty() still returned false instead of true.
>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Hi!
>
> Please review this patch with care, the comments in rculist.h
> confused me like hell:
So there are some special cases where list_empty() can be applied to
an RCU-protected list. One such case is where only one task is
permitted to remove from the list (or, equivalently, where removal
is protected by a lock). Then if that task sees !list_empty(), it
knows that the list will remain non-empty because no one else is
removing things.
There are other special cases, but this one gives the general flavor.
Thanx, Paul
> First it says:
> /*
> * Why is there no list_empty_rcu()? Because list_empty() serves this
> * purpose. The list_empty() function fetches the RCU-protected pointer
> * and compares it to the address of the list head, but neither dereferences
> * this pointer itself nor provides this pointer to the caller. Therefore,
> * it is not necessary to use rcu_dereference(), so that list_empty() can
> * be used anywhere you would want to use a list_empty_rcu().
> */
>
> And later:
> /**
> * Where are list_empty_rcu() and list_first_entry_rcu()?
> *
> * Implementing those functions following their counterparts list_empty() and
> * list_first_entry() is not advisable because they lead to subtle race
> * conditions as the following snippet shows:
> *
> * if (!list_empty_rcu(mylist)) {
> * struct foo *bar = list_first_entry_rcu(mylist, struct foo, list_member);
> * do_something(bar);
> * }
> *
> * The list may not be empty when list_empty_rcu checks it, but it may be when
> * list_first_entry_rcu rereads the ->next pointer.
> *
> * Rereading the ->next pointer is not a problem for list_empty() and
> * list_first_entry() because they would be protected by a lock that blocks
> * writers.
> *
> * See list_first_or_null_rcu for an alternative.
> */
>
> To my understanding we cannot use list_empty() and have to use list_first_or_null_rcu(),
> or am I missing something?
>
> Thanks,
> //richard
>
> fs/pnode.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/pnode.c b/fs/pnode.c
> index 302bf22..883901c 100644
> --- a/fs/pnode.c
> +++ b/fs/pnode.c
> @@ -380,7 +380,8 @@ static void __propagate_umount(struct mount *mnt)
> * umount the child only if the child has no
> * other children
> */
> - if (child && list_empty(&child->mnt_mounts)) {
> + if (child && list_first_or_null_rcu(&child->mnt_mounts,
> + struct mount, mnt_mounts)) {
> hlist_del_init_rcu(&child->mnt_hash);
> hlist_add_before_rcu(&child->mnt_hash, &mnt->mnt_hash);
> }
> --
> 1.8.4.5
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
