Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> static __poll_t
> pipe_poll(struct file *filp, poll_table *wait)
> {
> __poll_t mask;
> struct pipe_inode_info *pipe = filp->private_data;
> unsigned int head = READ_ONCE(pipe->head);
> unsigned int tail = READ_ONCE(pipe->tail);
>
> poll_wait(filp, &pipe->wait, wait);
>
> BUG_ON(pipe_occupancy(head, tail) > pipe->ring_size);
>
> It's not holding the pipe mutex, right? So 'head', 'tail' and 'ring_size' can
> all be changed concurrently, and they aren't read atomically with respect to
> each other.
>
> How do you propose to implement poll() correctly with the new head + tail
> approach? Just take the mutex?
Firstly, the BUG_ON() check probably isn't necessary here - the same issue
with occupancy being seen to be greater than the queue depth existed
previously (there was no locking around the read of pipe->nrbufs and
pipe->buffers). I added a sanity check.
Secondly, it should be possible to make it such that just the spinlock
suffices. The following few patches make the main pipe read/write routines
use the spinlock so as not to be interfered with by notification insertion.
I didn't roll the spinlock out to splice and suchlike since I prohibit
splicing to a notifications pipe because of the iov_iter_revert() fun.
David
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
