On (Wed) 24 Jul 2013 [11:19:24], Rusty Russell wrote: > Amit Shah <amit.shah@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > On (Mon) 22 Jul 2013 [15:26:22], Rusty Russell wrote: > >> Amit Shah <amit.shah@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > The removal functions act on the vqs, and the vq operations need to be > >> > locked. > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Amit Shah <amit.shah@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> How can userspace access the port now? By the time we are cleaning up > >> buffers, there should be no possibility of such accesses. > > > > close(), can happen when the port is being unplugged. We're just > > making sure here that port_fops_release() and unplug_port() don't try > > to free up the same data at the same time. > > Why doesn't reference counting help us here? Surely the last one should > clean up? That's what I had originally thought. But that's not how it should happen, as detailed in patch 3. Cleaning up has to happen at the time of port unplug itself, for two reasons: 1. If the device itself is removed (not just the port on which it sits), unplug should do the cleanup, as all vqs will be lost by the time close() is called 2. A new port could be plugged in which uses the same vqs as the older one, causing the close() to delete data which it should not. For the 2nd problem, some new state to track the port's status wrt the host can be introduced, as both of us mentioned in this thread. However, I'd like to tackle that properly later. > >> The number of bugfixes here is deeply disturbing. > > > > Yes, the first three fix a bug - close() after unplug. However, the > > others are inadequate locking fixes which I noticed while fixing that > > bug. > > > > Port unplug isn't a frequently-used or tested path, so these were > > lying unnoticed so far. > > > >> I wonder if it's be > >> easier to rewrite it all with a lock per port, and one global to protect > >> ports_driver_data. > > > > Hm, with this series, I don't see anything that might need extra > > locking. Though I'll take a look at this afresh in a while -- and see > > if we could simplify something. > > > > Given that this was necessary only for unplug operations, (and they > > aren't a 'regular operation', so we could drop the stable@ for the > > series?), are you OK with this series for now? > > Let's skip stable@ for theoretical bugs. Please repost. They're not observed in practice yet, right. Will repost. Thanks, Amit _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
