On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 02:04:46PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 09:56:37AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 10:29:41AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 02:35:27PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > > +void iommufd_vdevice_destroy(struct iommufd_object *obj)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct iommufd_vdevice *vdev =
> > > > + container_of(obj, struct iommufd_vdevice, obj);
> > > > + struct iommufd_viommu *viommu = vdev->viommu;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* xa_cmpxchg is okay to fail if alloc returned -EEXIST previously */
> > > > + xa_cmpxchg(&viommu->vdevs, vdev->id, vdev, NULL, GFP_KERNEL);
> > >
> > > There are crazy races that would cause this not to work. Another
> > > thread could have successfully destroyed whatever caused EEXIST and
> > > the successfully registered this same vdev to the same id. Then this
> > > will wrongly erase the other threads entry.
> > >
> > > It would be better to skip the erase directly if the EEXIST unwind is
> > > being taken.
> >
> > Hmm, is the "another thread" an alloc() or a destroy()?
>
> I was thinking both
>
> > It doesn't seem to me that there could be another destroy() on the
> > same object since this current destroy() is the abort to an
> > unfinalized object. And it doesn't seem that another alloc() will
> > get the same vdev ptr since every vdev allocation in the alloc()
> > will be different?
>
> Ah so you are saying that since the vdev 'old' is local to this thread
> it can't possibly by aliased by another?
>
> I was worried the id could be aliased, but yes, that seems right that
> the vdev cmpxchg would reject that.
>
> So lets leave it
Ack. I'll still update this since xa_cmpxchg can give other errno:
+ /* xa_cmpxchg is okay to fail if alloc returned -EEXIST previously */
- /* xa_cmpxchg is okay to fail if alloc failed xa_cmpxchg previously */
Thanks
Nicolin
