linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next 3/4] block/rq_qos: use a global mutex to protect rq

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]

Message-ID: <Y7cYKdOwSlfHtj7t@slm.duckdns.org>
Date:   Thu, 5 Jan 2023 08:34:17 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
Cc:     hch@...radead.org, josef@...icpanda.com, axboe@...nel.dk,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yi.zhang@...wei.com,
        yangerkun@...wei.com, "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 3/4] block/rq_qos: use a global mutex to protect
 rq_qos apis

Hello,

On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 09:35:21AM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
> > Can you please take a look at the following patchset I just posted:
> > 
> >    https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230105002007.157497-1-tj@kernel.org
> > 
> > After that, all these configuration operations are wrapped between
> > blkg_conf_init() and blkg_conf_exit() which probably are the right place to
> > implement the synchronization.
> 
> I see that, blkg_conf_init() and blkg_conf_exit() is good, however there
> are some details I want to confirm:
> 
> 1) rq_qos_add() can be called from iocost/iolatency, where
> blkg_conf_init() will be called first, while rq_qos_add() can also be
> called from wbt, where there is no blkg_conf_init(). Hence it seems to
> me we need two locks here, one to protect rq_qos apis; one to
> synchronize policy configuration and device removal.

wbt's lazy init is tied to one of the block device sysfs files, right? So,
it *should* already be protected against device removal.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun