Re: [PATCH 3/3] eventfd: add internal reference counting to fixnotifier race conditions

[Davide Libenzi]

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Davide Libenzi wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> 
> > I am fairly confident it is not that simple after having thought about
> > this issue over the last few days.  But I've been wrong in the past. 
> > Propose a patch and I will review it for races/correctness, if you
> > like.  Perhaps a combination of that plus your asymmetrical locking
> > scheme would work.  One of the challenges you will hit is avoiding ABBA
> > between your "get" lock and the wqh, but good luck!
> 
> A patch for what? The eventfd patch is a one-liner.
> It seems hard to believe that the thing cannot be handled on your side. 
> Once the wake_up_locked() is turned into a wake_up(), what other races are 
> there?

AFAICS, the IRQfd code simply registers the callback to ->poll() and waits 
for two events.
In the POLLIN event, you schedule_work(&irqfd->inject) and there are no 
races there AFAICS (you basically do not care of anything eventfd memory 
related at all).
For POLLHUP, you do:

	spin_lock(irqfd->slock);
	if (irqfd->wqh)
		schedule_work(&irqfd->inject);
	irqfd->wqh = NULL;
	spin_unlock(irqfd->slock);

In your work function you notice the POLLHUP condition and take proper 
action (dunno what it is in your case).
In your kvm_irqfd_release() function:

	spin_lock(irqfd->slock);
	if (irqfd->wqh)
		remove_wait_queue(irqfd->wqh, &irqfd->wait);
	irqfd->wqh = NULL;
	spin_unlock(irqfd->slock);

Any races in there?



- Davide


--
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/