On 2020/3/25 10:24 PM, Chuck Lever wrote:
>
>
>> On Mar 25, 2020, at 2:37 AM, Yihao Wu <wuyihao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 2020/3/25 1:46 AM, Chuck Lever wrote:
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> net/sunrpc/cache.c | 3 +++
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/cache.c b/net/sunrpc/cache.c
>>>>>> index bd843a81afa0..3e523eefc47f 100644
>>>>>> --- a/net/sunrpc/cache.c
>>>>>> +++ b/net/sunrpc/cache.c
>>>>>> @@ -524,9 +524,11 @@ void cache_purge(struct cache_detail *detail)
>>>>>> struct hlist_node *tmp = NULL;
>>>>>> int i = 0;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> + spin_lock(&cache_list_lock);
>>>>>> spin_lock(&detail->hash_lock);
>>>>>> if (!detail->entries) {
>>>>>> spin_unlock(&detail->hash_lock);
>>>>>> + spin_unlock(&cache_list_lock);
>>>>>> return;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @@ -541,6 +543,7 @@ void cache_purge(struct cache_detail *detail)
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> spin_unlock(&detail->hash_lock);
>>>>>> + spin_unlock(&cache_list_lock);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cache_purge);
>>>>
>>>> Hmm... Shouldn't this patch be dropping cache_list_lock() when we call
>>>> sunrpc_end_cache_remove_entry()? The latter does call both
>>>> cache_revisit_request() and cache_put(), and while they do not
>>>> explicitly call anything that holds cache_list_lock, some of those cd-
>>>>> cache_put callbacks do look as if there is potential for deadlock.
>>> I see svc_export_put calling dput, eventually, which might_sleep().
>>
>> Wow that's a little strange. If svc_export_put->dput might_sleep, why can we
>> spin_lock(&detail->hash_lock); in cache_purge in the first place?
>>
>> And I agree with Trond those cd->cache_put callbacks are dangerous. I will look
>> into them today.
>>
>> But if we dropping cache_list_lock when we call sunrpc_end_cache_remove_entry,
>> cache_put is not protected, and this patch won't work anymore, right?
>
> IMHO Neil's proposed solution seems pretty safe, and follows a well-understood
> pattern.
>
> It would be nice (but not 100% necessary) if the race you found was spelled out
> in the patch description.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> --
> Chuck Lever
>
>
Yeah. I believe Neil's solution must be better.
But I'm still studying it, so I didn't reply to him yet.
OK. I'll try make it more clearly in the next version patch.
Thanks,
Yihao Wu
