[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1401803863.3645.208.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 06:57:43 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PULL 2/2] vhost: replace rcu with mutex
On Tue, 2014-06-03 at 14:48 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 02/06/2014 23:58, Eric Dumazet ha scritto:
> > This looks dubious
> >
> > What about using kfree_rcu() instead ?
>
> It would lead to unbound allocation from userspace.
Look at how we did this in commit
c3059477fce2d956a0bb3e04357324780c5d8eeb
>
> > translate_desc() still uses rcu_read_lock(), its not clear if the mutex
> > is really held.
>
> Yes, vhost_get_vq_desc must be called with the vq mutex held.
>
> The rcu_read_lock/unlock in translate_desc is unnecessary.
Yep, this is what I pointed out. This is not only necessary, but
confusing and might be incorrectly copy/pasted in the future.
This patch is a partial one and leaves confusion.
Some places uses the proper
mp = rcu_dereference_protected(dev->memory,
lockdep_is_held(&dev->mutex));
others use the now incorrect :
rcu_read_lock();
mp = rcu_dereference(dev->memory);
...
--
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