Re: [PATCH v7 03/15] s390/zcrypt: driver callback to indicate resource in use

[Tony Krowiak]

On 4/16/20 6:05 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 13:10:18 -0400
> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On 4/14/20 8:08 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > > On Tue,  7 Apr 2020 15:20:03 -0400
> > > Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > @@ -995,9 +996,11 @@ int ap_parse_mask_str(const char *str,
> > > >    	newmap = kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
> > > >    	if (!newmap)
> > > >    		return -ENOMEM;
> > > > -	if (mutex_lock_interruptible(lock)) {
> > > > -		kfree(newmap);
> > > > -		return -ERESTARTSYS;
> > > > +	if (lock) {
> > > > +		if (mutex_lock_interruptible(lock)) {
> > > > +			kfree(newmap);
> > > > +			return -ERESTARTSYS;
> > > > +		}
> > > This whole function is a bit odd. It seems all masks we want to
> > > manipulate are always guarded by the ap_perms_mutex, and the need for
> > > allowing lock == NULL comes from wanting to call this function with the
> > > ap_perms_mutex already held.
> > >
> > > That would argue for a locked/unlocked version of this function... but
> > > looking at it, why do we lock the way we do? The one thing this
> > > function (prior to this patch) does outside of the holding of the mutex
> > > is the allocation and freeing of newmap. But with this patch, we do the
> > > allocation and freeing of newmap while holding the mutex. Something
> > > seems a bit weird here.
> > Note that the ap_parse_mask function copies the newmap
> > to the bitmap passed in as a parameter to the function.
> > Prior to the introduction of this patch, the calling functions - i.e.,
> > apmask_store(), aqmask_store() and ap_perms_init() - passed
> > in the actual bitmap (i.e., ap_perms.apm or ap_perms aqm),
> > so the ap_perms were changed directly by this function.
> >
> > With this patch, the apmask_store() and aqmask_store()
> > functions now pass in a copy of those bitmaps. This is so
> > we can verify that any APQNs being removed are not
> > in use by the vfio_ap device driver before committing the
> > change to ap_perms. Consequently, it is now necessary
> > to take the lock for the until the changes are committed.
> Yes, but every caller actually takes the mutex before calling this
> function already :)

That is not a true statement, the ap_perms_init() function
does not take the mutex prior to calling this function. Keep in
mind, the ap_parse_mask function is not static and is exported,
I was precluded from removing the lock parameter from the function
definition.

> > Having explained that, you make a valid argument that
> > this calls for a locked/unlocked version of this function, so
> > I will modify this patch to that effect.
> Ok.
>
> The other thing I found weird is that the function does
> alloc newmap -> grab mutex -> do manipulation -> release mutex -> free newmap
> while the new callers do
> (mutex already held) -> alloc newmap
>
> so why grab/release the mutex the way the function does now? IOW, why
> not have an unlocked __ap_parse_mask_string() and do

In my last comment above, I agreed to create an unlocked version
of this function. Your example below is similar to what I
implemented after responding to your comment yesterday.

> int ap_parse_mask_string(...)
> {
> 	int rc;
>
> 	if (mutex_lock_interruptible(&ap_perms_mutex))
> 		return -ERESTARTSYS;
> 	rc = __ap_parse_mask_string(...);
>          mutex_unlock(&ap_perms_mutex);
> 	return rc;
> }