> From: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2021 2:11 AM
>
> On Sat, Jul 17, 2021 at 10:42:57AM +0300, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > VQs may be accessed to mark the device broken while they are
> > created/destroyed. Hence protect the access to the vqs list.
> >
> > Fixes: e2dcdfe95c0b ("virtio: virtio_break_device() to mark all
> > virtqueues broken.")
> > Signed-off-by: Parav Pandit <parav@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/virtio/virtio.c | 1 +
> > drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c | 8 ++++++++
> > include/linux/virtio.h | 1 +
> > 3 files changed, 10 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio.c index
> > 4b15c00c0a0a..a0d81e35ec4b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio.c
> > +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio.c
> > @@ -355,6 +355,7 @@ int register_virtio_device(struct virtio_device *dev)
> > virtio_add_status(dev, VIRTIO_CONFIG_S_ACKNOWLEDGE);
> >
> > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&dev->vqs);
> > + rwlock_init(&dev->vqs_list_lock);
> >
> > /*
> > * device_add() causes the bus infrastructure to look for a matching
>
> Let's just use a simple spinlock. I don't think we are worried about scaling the
> breaking of devices to multiple CPUs.
>
It wasn't the scaling, just wanted to have the clarity on list access. But I realized that rwlock is bigger size too.
So yeah, will simplify to spinlock in v2.
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
