On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 01:26:07PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Lina Iyer <ilina@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > +static struct rpmh_ctrlr rpmh_rsc[RPMH_MAX_CTRLR];
> > +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(rpmh_rsc_lock);
> > +
> > +static struct rpmh_ctrlr *get_rpmh_ctrlr(const struct device *dev)
> > +{
> > + int i;
> > + struct rsc_drv *p, *drv = dev_get_drvdata(dev->parent);
> > + struct rpmh_ctrlr *ctrlr = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > +
> > + if (!drv)
> > + return ctrlr;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < RPMH_MAX_CTRLR; i++) {
> > + if (rpmh_rsc[i].drv == drv) {
> > + ctrlr = &rpmh_rsc[i];
> > + return ctrlr;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&rpmh_rsc_lock, flags);
> > + list_for_each_entry(p, &rsc_drv_list, list) {
> > + if (drv == p) {
> > + for (i = 0; i < RPMH_MAX_CTRLR; i++) {
> > + if (!rpmh_rsc[i].drv)
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + if (i == RPMH_MAX_CTRLR) {
> > + ctrlr = ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + rpmh_rsc[i].drv = drv;
> > + ctrlr = &rpmh_rsc[i];
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rpmh_rsc_lock, flags);
>
> I may have missed something, but to me it appears that this whole
> "rsc_drv_list" is pretty pointless. I wrote up a patch atop your
> series to remove it at
> <https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromiumos/third_party/kernel/+/1042883/>
> and it simplifies the code a whole bunch. From that patch, my
> justification was:
>
> > The global rsc_drv_list was (as far as I can tell) racy and not useful
> > for anything.
> >
> > I say it is racy because in general you need some sort of mutual
> > exclusion for lists. If someone is adding to a list while someone
> > else is iterating over it then you get badness.
> >
> > I say it is not useful because the only user of it was
> > get_rpmh_ctrlr() and the only thing it did was to verify that the
> > "struct rsc_drv *" that it alrady had was in the list. How could it
> > not be?
I agree that the list doesn't seem to be very useful.
> Note that in v7 of your series you added a spinlock around your access
> of "rsc_drv_list", but this doesn't actually remove the race.
> Specifically I'm pretty sure that the list primitives don't support
> calling list_add() while someone might be iterating over the list and
> your spinlock isn't grabbed in rpmh_rsc_probe().
Actually adding a lock was my suggestion, but to protect against
another race that is still/again present with your patch:
> if (!rpmh_rsc[i].drv) {
> rpmh_rsc[i].drv = drv;
This could be executed concurrently with both/all instances seeing
rpmh_rsc[i].drv == NULL and then clobbering each other.
> spin_lock_init(&rpmh_rsc[i].lock);
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&rpmh_rsc[i].cache);
> return &rpmh_rsc[i];
> }
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
