[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210331130720.GF1463678@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 10:07:20 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
vishal.l.verma@...el.com, ira.weiny@...el.com,
alison.schofield@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] cxl/mem: Fix synchronization mechanism for device
removal vs ioctl operations
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 04:36:37PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> -static void cxlmdev_unregister(void *_cxlmd)
> +static void cxl_memdev_activate(struct cxl_memdev *cxlmd, struct cxl_mem *cxlm)
> {
> - struct cxl_memdev *cxlmd = _cxlmd;
> - struct device *dev = &cxlmd->dev;
> + cxlmd->cxlm = cxlm;
> + down_write(&cxl_memdev_rwsem);
> + up_write(&cxl_memdev_rwsem);
> +}
No reason not to put the assignment inside the lock. Though using the
lock at all is overkill as the pointer hasn't left the local stack
frame at this point.
> err_add:
> - ida_free(&cxl_memdev_ida, cxlmd->id);
> -err_id:
> /*
> - * Theoretically userspace could have already entered the fops,
> - * so flush ops_active.
> + * The cdev was briefly live, shutdown any ioctl operations that
> + * saw that state.
> */
Wow it is really subtle that cdev_device_add has this tiny hole where
it can fail but have already allowed open() :<
Other than the lock it looks OK
Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists