On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 07:49:04PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 06:21:19AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 09:36:40PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > refcount_t type and corresponding API should be used instead of atomic_t when
> > > the variable is used as a reference counter. This allows to avoid accidental
> > > refcounter overflows that might lead to use-after-free situations.
> > >
> > > Most changes are 1:1 replacements except for
> > > BUG_ON(atomic_inc_return(&sh->count) != 1);
> > >
> > > which has been turned into
> > > refcount_inc(&sh->count);
> > > BUG_ON(refcount_read(&sh->count) != 1);
> >
> > @@ -5387,7 +5387,8 @@ static struct stripe_head *__get_priority_stripe(struct
> > +r5conf *conf, int group)
> > sh->group = NULL;
> > }
> > list_del_init(&sh->lru);
> > - BUG_ON(atomic_inc_return(&sh->count) != 1);
> > + refcount_inc(&sh->count);
> > + BUG_ON(refcount_read(&sh->count) != 1);
> > return sh;
> > }
> >
> >
> > That's the only problematic usage. And I think what it's really saying is:
> >
> > BUG_ON(refcount_read(&sh->count) != 0);
> > refcount_set(&sh->count, 1);
> >
> > With that, this looks like a reasonable use of refcount_t to me.
>
> I'm not so sure, look at:
>
> r5c_do_reclaim():
>
> if (!list_empty(&sh->lru) &&
> !test_bit(STRIPE_HANDLE, &sh->state) &&
> atomic_read(&sh->count) == 0) {
> r5c_flush_stripe(cond, sh)
>
> Which does:
>
> r5c_flush_stripe():
>
> atomic_inc(&sh->count);
>
> Which is another inc-from-zero. Also, having sh's with count==0 in a
> list is counter to the concept of refcounts and smells like usage-counts
> to me. For refcount 0 really means deads and gone.
>
> If this really is supposed to be a refcount, someone more familiar with
> the raid5 should do the patch and write a comprehensive changelog on it.
I don't know what is changed in the refcount, such raid5 change has attempted
before and didn't work. 0 for the stripe count is a valid usage and we do
inc-from-zero in several places.
Thanks,
Shaohua
