On 09/20/2011 10:43 AM, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote:
> 20.09.2011 18:24, Jeff Layton пишет:
>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:49:27 +0400
>> Stanislav Kinsbursky<skinsbursky@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> v5: fixed races with rpcb_users in rpcb_get_local()
>>>
>>> This helpers will be used for dynamical creation and destruction of rpcbind
>>> clients.
>>> Variable rpcb_users is actually a counter of lauched RPC services. If rpcbind
>>> clients has been created already, then we just increase rpcb_users.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Stanislav Kinsbursky<skinsbursky@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> net/sunrpc/rpcb_clnt.c | 53 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> 1 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/rpcb_clnt.c b/net/sunrpc/rpcb_clnt.c
>>> index e45d2fb..5f4a406 100644
>>> --- a/net/sunrpc/rpcb_clnt.c
>>> +++ b/net/sunrpc/rpcb_clnt.c
>>> @@ -114,6 +114,9 @@ static struct rpc_program rpcb_program;
>>> static struct rpc_clnt * rpcb_local_clnt;
>>> static struct rpc_clnt * rpcb_local_clnt4;
>>> +DEFINE_SPINLOCK(rpcb_clnt_lock);
>>> +unsigned int rpcb_users;
>>> +
>>> struct rpcbind_args {
>>> struct rpc_xprt * r_xprt;
>>> @@ -161,6 +164,56 @@ static void rpcb_map_release(void *data)
>>> kfree(map);
>>> }
>>> +static int rpcb_get_local(void)
>>> +{
>>> + int cnt;
>>> +
>>> + spin_lock(&rpcb_clnt_lock);
>>> + if (rpcb_users)
>>> + rpcb_users++;
>>> + cnt = rpcb_users;
>>> + spin_unlock(&rpcb_clnt_lock);
>>> +
>>> + return cnt;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +void rpcb_put_local(void)
>>> +{
>>> + struct rpc_clnt *clnt = rpcb_local_clnt;
>>> + struct rpc_clnt *clnt4 = rpcb_local_clnt4;
>>> + int shutdown;
>>> +
>>> + spin_lock(&rpcb_clnt_lock);
>>> + if (--rpcb_users == 0) {
>>> + rpcb_local_clnt = NULL;
>>> + rpcb_local_clnt4 = NULL;
>>> + }
>>
>> In the function below, you mention that the above pointers are
>> protected by rpcb_create_local_mutex, but it looks like they get reset
>> here without that being held?
>>
>
> Assigning of them is protected by rpcb_create_local_mutex.
> Dereferencing of them is protected by rpcb_clnt_lock.
Shouldn't you be using the same lock for assigning and dereferencing? Otherwise one thread could change these variables while another is using them.
>
>> Might it be simpler to just protect rpcb_users with the
>> rpcb_create_local_mutex and ensure that it's held whenever you call one
>> of these routines? None of these are codepaths are particularly hot.
>>
>
> I just inherited this lock-mutex logic.
> Actually, you right. This codepaths are used rarely.
> But are use sure, that we need to remove this "speed-up" logic if we take into account that it was here already?
>
>>> + shutdown = !rpcb_users;
>>> + spin_unlock(&rpcb_clnt_lock);
>>> +
>>> + if (shutdown) {
>>> + /*
>>> + * cleanup_rpcb_clnt - remove xprtsock's sysctls, unregister
>>> + */
>>> + if (clnt4)
>>> + rpc_shutdown_client(clnt4);
>>> + if (clnt)
>>> + rpc_shutdown_client(clnt);
>>> + }
>>> + return;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static void rpcb_set_local(struct rpc_clnt *clnt, struct rpc_clnt *clnt4)
>>> +{
>>> + /* Protected by rpcb_create_local_mutex */
>>> + rpcb_local_clnt = clnt;
>>> + rpcb_local_clnt4 = clnt4;
>>> + rpcb_users++;
>>> + dprintk("RPC: created new rpcb local clients (rpcb_local_clnt: "
>>> + "%p, rpcb_local_clnt4: %p)\n", rpcb_local_clnt,
>>> + rpcb_local_clnt4);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> /*
>>> * Returns zero on success, otherwise a negative errno value
>>> * is returned.
>>> --
>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
>>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>
>>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
