Re: [Pv-drivers] [PATCH 01/12] VMCI: context implementation.

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 09:01:40PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 07:10:58PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 06:03:42PM -0700, George Zhang wrote:
> > > +/*
> > > + * Releases the VMCI context. If this is the last reference to
> > > + * the context it will be deallocated. A context is created with
> > > + * a reference count of one, and on destroy, it is removed from
> > > + * the context list before its reference count is
> > > + * decremented. Thus, if we reach zero, we are sure that nobody
> > > + * else are about to increment it (they need the entry in the
> > > + * context list for that). This function musn't be called with a
> > > + * lock held.
> > > + */
> > > +void vmci_ctx_release(struct vmci_ctx *context)
> > > +{
> > > +	ASSERT(context);
> > > +	kref_put(&context->kref, ctx_free_ctx);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > 
> > Hm, are you _sure_ you should be calling this without a lock held?
> > That's usually kref-101, you MUST hold a lock when calling put,
> > otherwise you can race a kref_get() call, and all hell can break loose.
> > 
> > Because of this, some saner people (like Al Viro), have suggested that I
> > force the kref_put() and kref_get() calls pass in a spinlock just to
> > enforce this.
> > 
> > So, tell me what I'm missing here, and why you put the comment here
> > saying that it really is supposed to be called without a lock held?  How
> > is that safe?
> > 
> 
> Contexts are created/registered in vmci_ctx_init_ctx() and unregistered in
> vmci_ctx_release_ctx() and these operations are protected by
> ctx_list.lock spinlock. Context lookup (vmci_ctx_get) also uses spinlock
> to traverse list of registered contexts and then grabs reference to the
> [valid] context. The use of kref_put() without additional locking in
> vmci_ctx_release() is fine as there is no chance of another thread
> bumping count from 0 to 1.

As I didn't see all callers of this holding that spinlock, it was
confusing.  You should put this type of description somewhere so that
other reviewers don't have the same questions.

> I believe the comment should actually read that the function should not
> be called from atomic contexts.

That might be nice to document, but could it ever happen?

thanks,

greg k-h