On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 15:42 +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 12:07 +0200, ext Patrick McHardy wrote:
> > Luciano Coelho wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 19:48 +0200, Coelho Luciano (Nokia-D/Helsinki)
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 17:18 +0200, ext Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>>>> + timer = __idletimer_tg_find_by_label(info->label);
> > >>>>>> + if (!timer) {
> > >>>>>> + spin_unlock(&list_lock);
> > >>>>>> + timer = idletimer_tg_create(info);
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> How does this prevent creating the same timer twice?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> The timer will only be created if __idletimer_tg_find_by_label() returns
> > >>>> NULL, which means that no timer with that label has been found. "info"
> > >>>> won't be the same if info->label is different, right? Or can it change
> > >>>> on the fly?
> > >>>>
> > >>> One thing to be generally aware about is that things could potentially
> > >>> be instantiated by another entity between the time a label was looked up
> > >>> with negative result and the time one tries to add it.
> > >>> It may thus be required to extend keeping the lock until after
> > >>> idletimer_tg_create, in other words, lookup and create must be atomic
> > >>> to the rest of the world.
> > >>>
> > >> Ahh, sure! I missed the actual point of Patrick's question. I had the
> > >> idletimer_tg_create() inside the lock, but when I added the
> > >> sysfs_create_file() there (which can sleep), I screwed up with the
> > >> locking.
> > >>
> > >> I'll move the sysfs file creation to outside that function so I can keep
> > >> the lock until after the timer is added to the list. Thanks for
> > >> clarifying!
> > >>
> > >
> > > Hmmm... after struggling with this for a while, I think it's not really
> > > possible to simply create the sysfs file outside of the lock, because if
> > > the sysfs creation fails, we will again risk a race condition.
> > >
> > > I think the only way is to delay the sysfs file creation and do it in a
> > > workqueue.
> > >
> >
> > Why don't you simply use a mutex instead of the spinlock? It would be better
> > to only do the lookup once and store the timer pointer in the target
> > structure
> > anyways.
>
> Wow! Again I have been totally blind and focusing only in a solution for
> the spinlock problem, while using a mutex would ease things up quite a
> lot! Thanks for the suggestion, I'll re-spin my patch (pun intended?)
> with a mutex.
Yep, now I think I (finally) got it right :)
> I also agree that it makes more sense to lookup and store the timer in
> the targe.
One quick question about this: did you mean to put it in the target info
structure, in this case struct idletimer_tg_info? So is it okay to have
internal data in this structure even though it is mostly for passing
data from the userspace to the kernel?
--
Cheers,
Luca.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
