Re: [PATCH] tipc: checking returns and Re: Possible Circular Locking in TIPC

[Jarek Poplawski]

On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 11:16:59PM +0000, Jon Maloy wrote:
> See my comments below.
> Regards
> ///jon
> 
> Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> 
> >..........
> >
> >Maybe I misinterpret this but, IMHO lockdep
> >complains about locks acquired in different
> >order: tipc_ref_acquire() gets ref_table_lock 
> >and then tipc_ret_table.entries[index]->lock,
> >but tipc_deleteport() inversely (with:
> >tipc_port_lock() and tipc_ref_discard()).
> >I hope maintainers will decide the correct
> >order.
> > 
> >
> This order is correct. There can never be parallel access to the
> same _instance_ of tipc_ret_table.entries[index]->lock from
> the two functions you mention.
> Note that tipc_deleteport() takes as argument the reference (=index)
> returned from tipc_ref_acquire(), so  it can not be (and is not) called
> until and unless the latter function has returned a valid reference.
> As a parallel, you can't do free() on a memory chunk until
> malloc() has given you a pointer to it.

I'm happy the order is correct! But the warning 
probably will be back. I know lockdep is sometimes
too careful but nevertheless some change is needed
to fix a real bug or give additional information
to lockdep. 

> >Btw. there is a problem with tipc_ref_discard():
> >it should be called with tipc_port_lock, but
> >how to discard a ref if this lock can't be
> >acquired? Is it OK to call it without the lock
> >like in subscr_named_msg_event()?
> > 
> >
> I suspect you are mixing up things here. 
> We are handling two different reference entries and two
> different locks in this function.
> One reference entry points to a subscription instance, and its
> reference (index) is obtainable from subscriber->ref. So, we
> could easily lock the entry if needed. However, in this
> particular case it is unnecessary, since there is no chance that
> anybody else could have obtained the new reference, and
> hence no risk for race conditions.
> The other reference entry was intended to point to a new port,
> but, since we didn't obtain any reference in the first place,
> there is no port to delete and no reference to discard.

I admit I don't know this program and I hope I
didn't mislead anybody with my message. I only
tried to point at some doubts and maybe this
function could be better commented about when
the lock is needed.

Thanks for explanations & best regards,

Jarek P.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/