[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080308113744.J1091@desktop>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 11:38:27 -1000 (HST)
From: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@...sapeake.net>
To: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] eventfd signal race in aio_complete()
On Sat, 8 Mar 2008, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Mar 2008, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 20:29:20 -0800 (PST)
>> Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org> wrote:
>>
>>> The second solution/patch simply moves the eventfd_signal() call before
>>> the __aio_put_req() call, but after the event has beed "ringed".
>>> We should be clear to go with the shorter/nicer second solution. Those
>>> patches builds, but I'm not even signing them off till I tested them.
>>
>> If there are no spinlock ordering issues between &ctx->ctx_lock
>> and &ctx->wqh.lock (taken inside eventfd_signal), then the second
>> patch is indeed preferable.
>>
>> Jeff and I did look at that briefly last night, but were not
>> familiar enough with the code to decide whether or not that was
>> safe.
>
> There's no interlocking between the two, so let's go with #2.
> Jeff, would you mind giving patch #2 a spin in your test suite?
I agree #2 would be best as well. It may take me a few days due to some
equipment issues but I will get back to you as soon as I can.
Thanks,
Jeff
>
>
>
> - Davide
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists