[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130307100325.GA31105@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 11:03:25 +0100
From: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...hat.com>
To: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, amwang@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netconsole: release the spinlock before
__netpoll_cleanup()
On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 07:08:24PM -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 03:46:43PM +0100, Veaceslav Falico wrote:
>> Commit 3335f0ca130c201f8680e97f63612053fbc16e22 removed spinlock unlocking
>> before __netpoll_cleanup() in netconsole_netdev_event(), however we still
>> might sleep in __netpoll_cleanup() - via synchronize_srcu(). Revert it and
>> add a comment.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...hat.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/netconsole.c | 10 ++++++++++
>> 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/netconsole.c b/drivers/net/netconsole.c
>> index 37add21..dd62b4c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/netconsole.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/netconsole.c
>> @@ -680,7 +680,17 @@ static int netconsole_netdev_event(struct notifier_block *this,
>> * rtnl_lock already held
>> */
>> if (nt->np.dev) {
>> + /*
>> + * we still might sleep in
>> + * __netpoll_cleanup(), so release
>> + * the lock
>> + */
>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(
>> + &target_list_lock,
>> + flags);
>> __netpoll_cleanup(&nt->np);
>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&target_list_lock,
>> + flags);
>> dev_put(nt->np.dev);
>> nt->np.dev = NULL;
>> }
>> --
>> 1.7.1
>>
>Thanks for noticing this Vaeceslav, but you can't just drop and re-acquire the
>lock like this, as it protect the list_for_each_entry loop that you're in. You
>can drop the lock in the above if clause, but then, after the nt->np.dev = NULL,
>go back an re-aquire the lock, and start the for loop. I thought we had already
>done this for some other purpose in this code using a label and a goto, but I
>suppose I was mistaken
You're right, I somehow missed that restart goto, which was removed
earlier. Does that feel right (I've also added back the
netconsole_target_put()):
Subject: [PATCH] netconsole: release the spinlock before __netpoll_cleanup()
__netpoll_cleanup() might sleep in synchronize_srcu(), which was added to
avoid race in another situation, so we can't call it with the spinlock
target_list_lock held.
Add spin_unlock/lock before/after it and restart the loop.
Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...hat.com>
---
drivers/net/netconsole.c | 13 +++++++++++++
1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/netconsole.c b/drivers/net/netconsole.c
index 37add21..267c26b 100644
--- a/drivers/net/netconsole.c
+++ b/drivers/net/netconsole.c
@@ -666,6 +666,7 @@ static int netconsole_netdev_event(struct notifier_block *this,
goto done;
spin_lock_irqsave(&target_list_lock, flags);
+restart:
list_for_each_entry(nt, &target_list, list) {
netconsole_target_get(nt);
if (nt->np.dev == dev) {
@@ -680,9 +681,21 @@ static int netconsole_netdev_event(struct notifier_block *this,
* rtnl_lock already held
*/
if (nt->np.dev) {
+ /*
+ * we still might sleep in
+ * __netpoll_cleanup(), so release
+ * the lock and restart
+ */
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(
+ &target_list_lock,
+ flags);
__netpoll_cleanup(&nt->np);
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&target_list_lock,
+ flags);
dev_put(nt->np.dev);
nt->np.dev = NULL;
+ netconsole_target_put(nt);
+ goto restart;
}
nt->enabled = 0;
stopped = true;
--
1.7.1
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists