On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 06:57:43AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Tue, 2014-06-03 at 14:48 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > Il 02/06/2014 23:58, Eric Dumazet ha scritto: > > > This looks dubious > > > > > > What about using kfree_rcu() instead ? > > > > It would lead to unbound allocation from userspace. > > Look at how we did this in commit > c3059477fce2d956a0bb3e04357324780c5d8eeb > > > > > > translate_desc() still uses rcu_read_lock(), its not clear if the mutex > > > is really held. > > > > Yes, vhost_get_vq_desc must be called with the vq mutex held. > > > > The rcu_read_lock/unlock in translate_desc is unnecessary. > > Yep, this is what I pointed out. This is not only necessary, but > confusing and might be incorrectly copy/pasted in the future. > > This patch is a partial one and leaves confusion. > > Some places uses the proper > > mp = rcu_dereference_protected(dev->memory, > lockdep_is_held(&dev->mutex)); > > others use the now incorrect : > > rcu_read_lock(); > mp = rcu_dereference(dev->memory); > ... > I agree, working on a cleanup patch on top now. -- MST _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
