linux-kernel - [PATCH 14/19] staging: lustre: improve waiting in sptlrpc_req_refresh

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 08 Jan 2018 14:28:13 +1100
From:   NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
To:     Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
        James Simmons <jsimmons@...radead.org>,
        Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        lustre <lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org>
Subject: [PATCH 14/19] staging: lustre: improve waiting in
 sptlrpc_req_refresh_ctx

Replace l_wait_event with wait_event_idle_timeout() and call the
handler function explicitly.  This makes it more clear
what is happening.

Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
---
 drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/sec.c |   34 ++++++++++++++++++++--------
 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/sec.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/sec.c
index 617e004d00f8..90e3b3022106 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/sec.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/sec.c
@@ -554,9 +554,8 @@ int ctx_check_refresh(struct ptlrpc_cli_ctx *ctx)
 }
 
 static
-int ctx_refresh_timeout(void *data)
+int ctx_refresh_timeout(struct ptlrpc_request *req)
 {
-	struct ptlrpc_request *req = data;
 	int rc;
 
 	/* conn_cnt is needed in expire_one_request */
@@ -575,10 +574,8 @@ int ctx_refresh_timeout(void *data)
 }
 
 static
-void ctx_refresh_interrupt(void *data)
+void ctx_refresh_interrupt(struct ptlrpc_request *req)
 {
-	struct ptlrpc_request *req = data;
-
 	spin_lock(&req->rq_lock);
 	req->rq_intr = 1;
 	spin_unlock(&req->rq_lock);
@@ -611,7 +608,6 @@ int sptlrpc_req_refresh_ctx(struct ptlrpc_request *req, long timeout)
 {
 	struct ptlrpc_cli_ctx *ctx = req->rq_cli_ctx;
 	struct ptlrpc_sec *sec;
-	struct l_wait_info lwi;
 	int rc;
 
 	LASSERT(ctx);
@@ -743,10 +739,28 @@ int sptlrpc_req_refresh_ctx(struct ptlrpc_request *req, long timeout)
 	req->rq_restart = 0;
 	spin_unlock(&req->rq_lock);
 
-	lwi = LWI_TIMEOUT_INTR(msecs_to_jiffies(timeout * MSEC_PER_SEC),
-			       ctx_refresh_timeout, ctx_refresh_interrupt,
-			       req);
-	rc = l_wait_event(req->rq_reply_waitq, ctx_check_refresh(ctx), &lwi);
+	rc = wait_event_idle_timeout(req->rq_reply_waitq,
+				     ctx_check_refresh(ctx),
+				     timeout * HZ);
+	if (rc == 0 && ctx_refresh_timeout(req) == 0) {
+		/* Keep waiting, but enable some signals */
+		rc = l_wait_event_abortable(req->rq_reply_waitq,
+					    ctx_check_refresh(ctx));
+		if (rc == 0)
+			rc = 1;
+	}
+
+	if (rc > 0)
+		/* condition is true */
+		rc = 0;
+	else if (rc == 0)
+		/* Timed out */
+		rc = -ETIMEDOUT;
+	else {
+		/* Aborted by signal */
+		rc = -EINTR;
+		ctx_refresh_interrupt(req);
+	}
 
 	/*
 	 * following cases could lead us here: