Re: [RFC PATCH v2 16/19] RDMA/uverbs: Add back pointer to system file object

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 10:28:27AM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 10:00:40AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 03:58:30PM -0700, ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > In order for MRs to be tracked against the open verbs context the ufile
> > > needs to have a pointer to hand to the GUP code.
> > > 
> > > No references need to be taken as this should be valid for the lifetime
> > > of the context.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >  drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs.h      | 1 +
> > >  drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs_main.c | 1 +
> > >  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs.h b/drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs.h
> > > index 1e5aeb39f774..e802ba8c67d6 100644
> > > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs.h
> > > @@ -163,6 +163,7 @@ struct ib_uverbs_file {
> > >  	struct page *disassociate_page;
> > >  
> > >  	struct xarray		idr;
> > > +	struct file             *sys_file; /* backpointer to system file object */
> > >  };
> > 
> > The 'struct file' has a lifetime strictly shorter than the
> > ib_uverbs_file, which is kref'd on its own lifetime. Having a back
> > pointer like this is confouding as it will be invalid for some of the
> > lifetime of the struct.
> 
> Ah...  ok.  I really thought it was the other way around.
> 
> __fput() should not call ib_uverbs_close() until the last reference on struct
> file is released...  What holds references to struct ib_uverbs_file past that?

Child fds hold onto the internal ib_uverbs_file until they are closed

> Perhaps I need to add this (untested)?
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs_main.c
> b/drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs_main.c
> index f628f9e4c09f..654e774d9cf2 100644
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs_main.c
> @@ -1125,6 +1125,8 @@ static int ib_uverbs_close(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
>         list_del_init(&file->list);
>         mutex_unlock(&file->device->lists_mutex);
>  
> +       file->sys_file = NULL;

Now this has unlocked updates to that data.. you'd need some lock and
get not zero pattern

Jason