On Thu, 2019-08-01 at 16:20 +0000, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 12:11:20PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> > On Thu, 2019-08-01 at 18:59 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > There's no need for a lockdep. The removal of the notifier
> > > > callback
> > > > entry is re-entrant safe. The core removal routines have their
> > > > own
> > > > spinlock they use to protect the actual notifier list. If you
> > > > call
> > > > it
> > > > more than once, the second and subsequent calls merely scan the
> > > > list,
> > > > find no matching entry, and return ENOENT. The only reason this
> > > > might
> > > > need a lock and a lockdep entry is if you are protecting against
> > > > a
> > > > race
> > > > with the *add* notifier code in the mlx5 driver specifically
> > > > (the
> > > > core
> > > > add code won't have an issue, but since you only have a single
> > > > place
> > > > to
> > > > store the notifier callback pointer, if it would be possible for
> > > > you
> > > > to
> > > > add two callbacks and write over the first callback pointer with
> > > > the
> > > > second without removing the first, then you would leak a
> > > > callback
> > > > notifier in the core notifier list).
> > >
> > > atomic_notifier_chain_unregister() unconditionally calls to
> > > syncronize_rcu() and I'm not so sure that it is best thing to do
> > > for every port unbind.
> > >
> > > Actually, I'm completely lost here, we are all agree that the
> > > patch
> > > fixes issue correctly, and it returns the code to be exactly as
> > > it was before commit df097a278c75 ("IB/mlx5: Use the new mlx5 core
> > > notifier
> > > API"). Can we simply merge it and fix the kernel panic?
> >
> > As long as you are OK with me adding a comment to the patch so
> > people
> > coming back later won't scratch their head about how can it possible
> > be
> > right to do that sequence without a lock held, I'm fine merging the
> > fix.
> >
> > Something like:
> >
> > /*
> > * The check/unregister/set-NULL sequence below does not need to be
> > * locked for correctness as it's only an optimization, and can't
> > * be under a lock or will throw a scheduling while atomic error.
> > */
>
> It does have a lock though, the caller holds it, hence the request for
> the lockdep.
You're right, although I think the lockdep annotation can be a separate
patch as it's neeeded on more than just the function this patch touches.
--
Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>
GPG KeyID: B826A3330E572FDD
Fingerprint = AE6B 1BDA 122B 23B4 265B 1274 B826 A333 0E57 2FDD
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
