On 11/4/19 9:31 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 05:03:31PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> On 10/28/19 4:10 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> @@ -445,17 +438,9 @@ static void gntdev_vma_close(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>>> struct gntdev_priv *priv = file->private_data;
>>>
>>> pr_debug("gntdev_vma_close %p\n", vma);
>>> - if (use_ptemod) {
>>> - /* It is possible that an mmu notifier could be running
>>> - * concurrently, so take priv->lock to ensure that the vma won't
>>> - * vanishing during the unmap_grant_pages call, since we will
>>> - * spin here until that completes. Such a concurrent call will
>>> - * not do any unmapping, since that has been done prior to
>>> - * closing the vma, but it may still iterate the unmap_ops list.
>>> - */
>>> - mutex_lock(&priv->lock);
>>> + if (use_ptemod && map->vma == vma) {
>>
>> Is it possible for map->vma not to be equal to vma?
> It could be NULL at least if use_ptemod is not set.
>
> Otherwise, I'm not sure, the confusing bit is that the map comes from
> here:
>
> map = gntdev_find_map_index(priv, index, count);
>
> It looks like the intent is that the map->vma is always set to the
> only vma that has the map as private_data.
I am not sure how this can work otherwise. We stash map pointer in vm's
vm_private_data and vice versa (for use_ptemod) gntdev_mmap() so if they
have to match.
That's why I was asking you to see if you had something particular in
mind when you added this test.
> So, I suppose it can be relaxed to a null test and a WARN_ON that it
> hasn't changed?
You mean
if (use_ptemod) {
WARN_ON(map->vma != vma);
...
Yes, that sounds good.
-boris
