netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 14/14] nvme-tcp: add NVMe over TCP host driver

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:   Wed, 21 Nov 2018 14:28:42 -0800
From:   Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>
To:     Mikhail Skorzhinskii <mskorzhinskiy@...arflare.com>
Cc:     linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 14/14] nvme-tcp: add NVMe over TCP host driver



On 11/21/18 4:01 AM, Mikhail Skorzhinskii wrote:
> Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me> writes:
>   > +static inline void nvme_tcp_queue_request(struct nvme_tcp_request *req)
>   > +{
>   > +	struct nvme_tcp_queue *queue = req->queue;
>   > +
>   > +	spin_lock_bh(&queue->lock);
>   > +	list_add_tail(&req->entry, &queue->send_list);
>   > +	spin_unlock_bh(&queue->lock);
>   > +
>   > +	queue_work_on(queue->io_cpu, nvme_tcp_wq, &queue->io_work);
>   > +}
> 
> May be I missing something, but why bother with bottom half version of
> locking?
> 
> There are few places where this lock could be accessed:
> 
>   (1) From ->queue_rq() call;
>   (2) From submitting new AEN request;
>   (3) From receiving new R2T;
> 
> Which one if these originates from bottom half? Not 100% about queue_rq
> data path, but (2) and (3) looks perfectly safe for me.

Actually, (3) in former versions was invoked in a soft-irq context which
was why this included the bh disable, but I guess it can be removed now.