Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] posix-aio: don't set aiocb->ret/active outside critical section

[Jim Meyering <jim@meyering.net>]

Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 15.05.2012 13:27, schrieb Jim Meyering:
>>
>> Move code that sets aiocb->ret and aiocb->active into critical section.
>> All other accesses are lock-guarded.  Spotted by coverity.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jim Meyering <meyering@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> I've included enough context to show one of the
>> guarded uses in the following function.
>>
>>  posix-aio-compat.c | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/posix-aio-compat.c b/posix-aio-compat.c
>> index 68361f5..45511d4 100644
>> --- a/posix-aio-compat.c
>> +++ b/posix-aio-compat.c
>> @@ -421,37 +421,37 @@ static void spawn_thread(void)
>>  {
>>      cur_threads++;
>>      new_threads++;
>>      /* If there are threads being created, they will spawn new workers, so
>>       * we don't spend time creating many threads in a loop holding a mutex or
>>       * starving the current vcpu.
>>       *
>>       * If there are no idle threads, ask the main thread to create one, so we
>>       * inherit the correct affinity instead of the vcpu affinity.
>>       */
>>      if (!pending_threads) {
>>          qemu_bh_schedule(new_thread_bh);
>>      }
>>  }
>>
>>  static void qemu_paio_submit(struct qemu_paiocb *aiocb)
>>  {
>> +    mutex_lock(&lock);
>>      aiocb->ret = -EINPROGRESS;
>>      aiocb->active = 0;
>> -    mutex_lock(&lock);
>>      if (idle_threads == 0 && cur_threads < max_threads)
>>          spawn_thread();
>>      QTAILQ_INSERT_TAIL(&request_list, aiocb, node);
>>      mutex_unlock(&lock);
>>      cond_signal(&cond);
>>  }
>
> This is just silencing coverity, not really fixing a bug, right? aiocb

Yes.  Given your explanation, it's obvious, now.

> is inserted into request_lists only afterwards, and before it is in the
> list, other threads can't find it.
>
> I'm just wondering why coverity doesn't complain about the callers of
> qemu_paio_submit(), they access aiocb as well...

It warned only about the setting of aiocb->ret (not about ->active),
apparently because it failed to deduce that the lock is not actually
required here, while several other ->ret accesses *are* guarded.