Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] dax/bus.c: fix locking for unregister_dax_dev / unregister_dax_mapping paths

[Dan Williams]

Vishal Verma wrote:
> Commit c05ae9d85b47 ("dax/bus.c: replace driver-core lock usage by a local rwsem")
> was a bit overzealous in eliminating device_lock() usage, and ended up
> removing a couple of lock acquisitions which were needed, and as a
> result, fix some of the conditional locking missteps that the above
> commit introduced in unregister_dax_dev() and unregister_dax_mapping().

I think it makes sense to tell the story a bit about why the
delete_store() conversion was problematic, because the
unregister_dev_dax() changes were just a knock-on effect to fixing the
delete_store() flow.

Something like:

---
commit c05ae9d85b47 ("dax/bus.c: replace driver-core lock usage by a local rwsem")
aimed to undo device_lock() abuses for protecting changes to dax-driver
internal data-structures like the dax_region resource tree to
device-dax-instance range structures. However, the device_lock() was legitamately
enforcing that devices to be deleted were not current actively attached
to any driver nor assigned any capacity from the region.
---

..you can fill in a couple notes about the knock-on fixups after that
was restored.

> Fixes: c05ae9d85b47 ("dax/bus.c: replace driver-core lock usage by a local rwsem")
> Reported-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/dax/bus.c | 44 ++++++++++----------------------------------
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/dax/bus.c b/drivers/dax/bus.c
> index 7924dd542a13..4e04b228b080 100644
> --- a/drivers/dax/bus.c
> +++ b/drivers/dax/bus.c
> @@ -465,26 +465,17 @@ static void free_dev_dax_ranges(struct dev_dax *dev_dax)
>  		trim_dev_dax_range(dev_dax);
>  }
>  
> -static void __unregister_dev_dax(void *dev)
> +static void unregister_dev_dax(void *dev)
>  {
>  	struct dev_dax *dev_dax = to_dev_dax(dev);
>  
>  	dev_dbg(dev, "%s\n", __func__);
>  
> +	down_write(&dax_region_rwsem);
>  	kill_dev_dax(dev_dax);
>  	device_del(dev);
>  	free_dev_dax_ranges(dev_dax);
>  	put_device(dev);
> -}
> -
> -static void unregister_dev_dax(void *dev)
> -{
> -	if (rwsem_is_locked(&dax_region_rwsem))
> -		return __unregister_dev_dax(dev);
> -
> -	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(down_write_killable(&dax_region_rwsem) != 0))
> -		return;
> -	__unregister_dev_dax(dev);
>  	up_write(&dax_region_rwsem);
>  }
>  
> @@ -560,15 +551,12 @@ static ssize_t delete_store(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
>  	if (!victim)
>  		return -ENXIO;
>  
> -	rc = down_write_killable(&dax_region_rwsem);
> -	if (rc)
> -		return rc;
> -	rc = down_write_killable(&dax_dev_rwsem);
> -	if (rc) {
> -		up_write(&dax_region_rwsem);
> -		return rc;
> -	}
> +	device_lock(dev);
> +	device_lock(victim);
>  	dev_dax = to_dev_dax(victim);
> +	rc = down_write_killable(&dax_dev_rwsem);

This begs the question, why down_write_killable(), but not
device_lock_interruptible()?

I do not expect any of this is long running so likely down_write() is
sufficient here, especially since the heaviest locks to acquire are
already held by the time rwsem is considered.

Other than that this looks good to me:

You can include my Reviewed-by on the next posting.