Re: [PATCH v3 02/13] xen/pvcalls: implement frontend disconnect

[Boris Ostrovsky]

On 07/31/2017 06:57 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> Introduce a data structure named pvcalls_bedata. It contains pointers to
> the command ring, the event channel, a list of active sockets and a list
> of passive sockets. Lists accesses are protected by a spin_lock.
>
> Introduce a waitqueue to allow waiting for a response on commands sent
> to the backend.
>
> Introduce an array of struct xen_pvcalls_response to store commands
> responses.
>
> Implement pvcalls frontend removal function. Go through the list of
> active and passive sockets and free them all, one at a time.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx
> CC: jgross@xxxxxxxx
> ---
>  drivers/xen/pvcalls-front.c | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 51 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/xen/pvcalls-front.c b/drivers/xen/pvcalls-front.c
> index a8d38c2..a126195 100644
> --- a/drivers/xen/pvcalls-front.c
> +++ b/drivers/xen/pvcalls-front.c
> @@ -20,6 +20,29 @@
>  #include <xen/xenbus.h>
>  #include <xen/interface/io/pvcalls.h>
>  
> +#define PVCALLS_INVALID_ID UINT_MAX
> +#define PVCALLS_RING_ORDER XENBUS_MAX_RING_GRANT_ORDER
> +#define PVCALLS_NR_REQ_PER_RING __CONST_RING_SIZE(xen_pvcalls, XEN_PAGE_SIZE)
> +
> +struct pvcalls_bedata {
> +	struct xen_pvcalls_front_ring ring;
> +	grant_ref_t ref;
> +	int irq;
> +
> +	struct list_head socket_mappings;
> +	struct list_head socketpass_mappings;
> +	spinlock_t pvcallss_lock;

In the backend this is called socket_lock and (subjectively) it would
sound as a better name here too.

> +
> +	wait_queue_head_t inflight_req;
> +	struct xen_pvcalls_response rsp[PVCALLS_NR_REQ_PER_RING];
> +};
> +static struct xenbus_device *pvcalls_front_dev;
> +
> +static irqreturn_t pvcalls_front_event_handler(int irq, void *dev_id)
> +{
> +	return IRQ_HANDLED;
> +}
> +
>  static const struct xenbus_device_id pvcalls_front_ids[] = {
>  	{ "pvcalls" },
>  	{ "" }
> @@ -27,6 +50,34 @@
>  
>  static int pvcalls_front_remove(struct xenbus_device *dev)
>  {
> +	struct pvcalls_bedata *bedata;
> +	struct sock_mapping *map = NULL, *n;
> +
> +	bedata = dev_get_drvdata(&pvcalls_front_dev->dev);
> +
> +	list_for_each_entry_safe(map, n, &bedata->socket_mappings, list) {
> +		mutex_lock(&map->active.in_mutex);
> +		mutex_lock(&map->active.out_mutex);
> +		pvcalls_front_free_map(bedata, map);
> +		mutex_unlock(&map->active.out_mutex);
> +		mutex_unlock(&map->active.in_mutex);
> +		kfree(map);

I think this is the same issue as the one discussed for some other patch
--- unlocking and then immediately freeing a lock.

> +	}
> +	list_for_each_entry_safe(map, n, &bedata->socketpass_mappings, list) {
> +		spin_lock(&bedata->pvcallss_lock);
> +		list_del_init(&map->list);
> +		spin_unlock(&bedata->pvcallss_lock);
> +		kfree(map);
> +	}
> +	if (bedata->irq > 0)
> +		unbind_from_irqhandler(bedata->irq, dev);
> +	if (bedata->ref >= 0)
> +		gnttab_end_foreign_access(bedata->ref, 0, 0);
> +	kfree(bedata->ring.sring);
> +	kfree(bedata);
> +	dev_set_drvdata(&dev->dev, NULL);
> +	xenbus_switch_state(dev, XenbusStateClosed);

Should we first move the state to Closed and then free things up? Or it
doesn't matter?

-boris

> +	pvcalls_front_dev = NULL;
>  	return 0;
>  }
>