[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181113193538.GA5096@kroah.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 11:35:38 -0800
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Angelo Ruocco <angeloruocco90@...il.com>,
Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>,
Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
Liu Bo <bo.liu@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, bfq-iosched@...glegroups.com,
oleksandr@...alenko.name, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/12] kernfs: add function to find kernfs_node without
increasing ref counter
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 06:53:59PM +0100, Paolo Valente wrote:
>
>
> > Il giorno 12 nov 2018, alle ore 13:28, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> ha scritto:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 10:56:21AM +0100, Paolo Valente wrote:
> >> From: Angelo Ruocco <angeloruocco90@...il.com>
> >>
> >> The kernfs pseudo file system doesn't export any function to only find
> >> a node by name, without also getting a reference on it.
> >> But in some cases it is useful to just locate a kernfs node, while
> >> using it or not depends on some other condition.
> >>
> >> This commit adds a function to just look for a node, without getting
> >> a reference on it.
> >
> > Eeek, that sounds really bad. So you save off a pointer to something,
> > and have no idea if that pointer now really is valid or not? It can
> > instantly disappear right afterwards.
> >
>
> Hi Greg,
> that function is invoked only in functions executed with cgroup_mutex
> held. This guarantees that nothing disappears or becomes
> inconsistent. That's why we decided to go for this optimization,
> instead of doing useless gets&puts pairs. Still, I'm not expert
> enough to state whether it is impossible that, once we have defined
> that function, it may then get used in some unsafe way.
I can guarantee once you define that function, it will be used in an
unsafe way :(
So just don't create it, use the put calls, it's fast and should never
be a performance issue.
> So, I seem to see two options:
> 1) Add a comment on the function, saying that cgroup_mutex must be
> held while invoking it (I guess you won't like this one).
Nope, do not create it.
> 2) Do not define such a new function, and, in the other patches, use
> the already-available find_and_get.
Yes, please do that.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists