From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Douglas Gilbert <dgilbert@interlog.com>
Cc: SCSI development list <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
James Bottomley <james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
vaughan <vaughan.cao@oracle.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sg: O_EXCL and other lock handling
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 08:56:53 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131031155653.GA16944@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52718713.7050906@interlog.com>
> + struct semaphore or_sem; /* protect co-incident opens and releases */
Seems like this should be a mutex.
> sfds_list_empty(Sg_device *sdp)
> {
> unsigned long flags;
> int ret;
>
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&sdp->sfd_lock, flags);
> + ret = list_empty(&sdp->sfds);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sdp->sfd_lock, flags);
> return ret;
Protecting just a list_empty check with a local will give you racy
results. Seems like you should take the look over the check and the
resulting action that modifies the list. That'd also mean replacing the
wait_event* calls with open coded prepare_wait / finish_wait loops.
> + down(&sdp->or_sem);
> + alone = sfds_list_empty(sdp);
> + if ((flags & O_EXCL) && (O_RDONLY == (flags & O_ACCMODE))) {
> + retval = -EPERM; /* Don't allow O_EXCL with read only access */
> + goto error_out;
> + }
Seems like the pure flags check should move to the beginning of the
function before taking any locks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-10-31 15:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-10-30 22:24 [PATCH v2] sg: O_EXCL and other lock handling Douglas Gilbert
2013-10-31 15:56 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2013-10-31 19:20 ` Douglas Gilbert
2013-11-01 5:14 ` vaughan
2013-11-01 5:16 ` vaughan
2013-11-02 18:22 ` Douglas Gilbert
2013-11-03 6:32 ` Vaughan Cao
2013-11-06 15:50 ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-11-06 19:30 ` Douglas Gilbert
2013-11-07 21:44 ` Christoph Hellwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20131031155653.GA16944@infradead.org \
--to=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=dgilbert@interlog.com \
--cc=james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vaughan.cao@oracle.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.