Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] KVM: introduce "xinterface" API for external interactionwith guests

[Avi Kivity]

On 10/06/2009 04:22 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +static inline void
> > > > > > +_kvm_xinterface_release(struct kref *kref)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > +    struct kvm_xinterface *intf;
> > > > > > +    struct module *owner;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +    intf = container_of(kref, struct kvm_xinterface, kref);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +    owner = intf->owner;
> > > > > > +    rmb();
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >              
> > > > > Why rmb?
> > > > >
> > > > >            
> > > > the intf->ops->release() line may invalidate the intf pointer, so we
> > > > want to ensure that the read completes before the release() is called.
> > > >
> > > > TBH: I'm not 100% its needed, but I was being conservative.
> > > >
> > > >          
> > > rmb()s are only needed if an external agent can issue writes, otherwise
> > > you'd need one after every statement.
> > >        
> > I was following lessons learned here:
> >
> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/7/175
> >
> > Perhaps mb() or barrier() are more appropriate than rmb()?  I'm CC'ing
> > David Howells in case he has more insight.
> >      
> BTW: In case it is not clear, the rationale as I understand it is we
> worry about the case where one cpu reorders the read to be after the
> ->release(), and another cpu might grab the memory that was kfree()'d
> within the ->release() and scribble something else on it before the read
> completes.
>
> I know rmb() typically needs to be paired with wmb() to be correct, so
> you are probably right to say that the rmb() itself is not appropriate.
>   This problem in general makes my head hurt, which is why I said I am
> not 100% sure of what is required.  As David mentions, perhaps
> "smp_mb()" is more appropriate for this application.  I also speculate
> barrier() may be all that we need.
>    

barrier() is the operation for a compiler barrier.  But it's unneeded 
here - unless the compiler can prove that ->release(intf) will not 
modify intf->owner it is not allowed to move the access afterwards.  An 
indirect function call is generally a barrier() since the compiler can't 
assume memory has not been modified.

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
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/