[Paul McKenney added to CC]
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 7:06 PM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 11:53:52AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>
>> Yes, but it's not about race with copy-up (which the ovl_path_upper()
>> protects against), but race of two fsync calls with each other. If
>> there's no synchronization between them, then that od->upperfile does
>> indeed count as lockless access, no matter that the assignment was
>> done under lock.
>
> p = global;
> if (!p) { // outside of lock
> p = alloc();
> grab lock
> if (!global) {
> global = p;
> } else {
> destroy(p);
> p = global;
> }
> drop lock
> }
> is a very common pattern, especially if you look for cases when lock is
> a spinlock and allocation is blocking (in those cases you'll often see
> destroy() part done after dropping the lock; that's where what I fucked up in
> what I'd originally pushed. And it wasn't even needed - fput() under
> ->i_mutex is OK...)
Being a very common pattern does not automatically make it correct...
My understanding of these issues is very limited, but it's not clear
to me what will order initialization of members of p with the storing
of p into global. E.g. we start out with global == NULL and p->foo ==
0.
CPU1:
p->foo = 1
grab lock
if (!global)
global = p
CPU1:
p = global
if (p)
q = p->foo
Is it guaranteed that the above sequence (as is, without any barriers
or ACCESS_ONCE() other than the lock acquisition) will result in q ==
1 if p != NULL?
Thanks,
Miklos
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-unionfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
