[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080522150328.7e19a453.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 15:03:28 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Michael Halcrow <mhalcrow@...ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, prussell@....ibm.com,
shaggy@...ibm.com, sergeh@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] eCryptfs: Clean up kthread synchronization
On Thu, 22 May 2008 16:16:25 -0500
Michael Halcrow <mhalcrow@...ibm.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 12:41:42PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 May 2008 14:31:55 -0500
> > Michael Halcrow <mhalcrow@...ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > +void ecryptfs_destroy_kthread(void)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct ecryptfs_open_req tmp_req;
> > > > > + struct ecryptfs_open_req *req;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + mutex_lock(&ecryptfs_kthread_ctl.mux);
> > > > > + ecryptfs_kthread_ctl.flags |= ECRYPTFS_KTHREAD_ZOMBIE;
> > > > > + list_for_each_entry(req, &ecryptfs_kthread_ctl.req_list,
> > > > > + kthread_ctl_list) {
> > > > > + mutex_lock(&req->mux);
> > > > > + req->flags |= ECRYPTFS_REQ_ZOMBIE;
> > > > > + wake_up_process(req->requesting_task);
> > > > > + mutex_unlock(&req->mux);
> > > > > + }
> > > > > + memset(&tmp_req, 0, sizeof(tmp_req));
> > > > > + tmp_req.flags = ECRYPTFS_REQ_ZOMBIE;
> > > > > + list_add_tail(&tmp_req.kthread_ctl_list,
> > > > > + &ecryptfs_kthread_ctl.req_list);
> > > > > + mutex_unlock(&ecryptfs_kthread_ctl.mux);
> > > > > + wake_up(&ecryptfs_kthread_ctl.wait);
> > > > > +}
> > > >
> > > > eh? We attach a local variable to a global list and then return?
> > > > That won't last very long.
> > >
> > > Adding this dummy entry to the list is just my own way of getting the
> > > kthread to wake up and shut down. This actually works, albeit a little
> > > ugly. The list and its contents get dropped on the floor at this point
> > > because (ecryptfs_kthread_ctl.flags & ECRYPTFS_KTHREAD_ZOMBIE). The
> > > only consumer of this list (the kthread) checks for this flag
> > > immediately after getting the mux, and if it is there, it just
> > > exits. The only producer on this list (ecryptfs_privileged_open())
> > > checks for this flag immediately after getting the mux and bows out if
> > > it is set. In other words, once this flag is set, the list and its
> > > contents become untouchable by anything other than
> > > ecryptfs_destroy_kthread().
> >
> > Unconvinced.
> >
> > As soon as ecryptfs_destroy_kthread() returns, tmp_req is destroyed.
> > But it remains on ecryptfs_kthread_ctl.req_list.
>
> I intend for ecryptfs_kthread_ctl.req_list to be irrelevant once
> ecryptfs_destroy_kthread() grabs the mux and sets
> (ecryptfs_kthread_ctl.flags |= ECRYPTFS_KTHREAD_ZOMBIE); nobody will
> ever do anything with that list any more. The state of the list --
> including the dangling list pointer -- simply does not matter any
> more.
OK.
> > > memset(&tmp_req, 0, sizeof(tmp_req));
> > > tmp_req.flags = ECRYPTFS_REQ_ZOMBIE;
> > > list_add_tail(&tmp_req.kthread_ctl_list,
> > > &ecryptfs_kthread_ctl.req_list);
> > > mutex_unlock(&ecryptfs_kthread_ctl.mux);
> > > wake_up(&ecryptfs_kthread_ctl.wait);
> >
> > -> it's dead.
So the above horridly-wrong code is not needed at all, and tmp_req can
be removed.
--
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