From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bus/vdev: reduce scope of device list lock
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 10:05:11 +0100
Message-ID: <8f0eb83d-5090-c7c8-5c3d-c4eecb96e596@intel.com>
References: <20180521161156.25724-1-thomas@monjalon.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: matan@mellanox.com, ferruh.yigit@intel.com
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>, dev@dpdk.org
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9548235
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 22 May 2018 11:05:15 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <20180521161156.25724-1-thomas@monjalon.net>
Content-Language: en-US
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On 21-May-18 5:11 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> The lock vdev_device_list_lock was taken before calling
> "remove" function for the device.
> So it prevents to remove sub-devices (as in failsafe) inside
> its own "remove" function, because of a deadlock.
> 
> The lock is now only protecting the device list inside
> the bus driver.
> 
> Fixes: 35f462839b69 ("bus/vdev: add lock on device list")
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> ---
>   drivers/bus/vdev/vdev.c | 10 ++++------
>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/bus/vdev/vdev.c b/drivers/bus/vdev/vdev.c
> index 099b9ff85..2fbc86806 100644
> --- a/drivers/bus/vdev/vdev.c
> +++ b/drivers/bus/vdev/vdev.c
> @@ -293,25 +293,23 @@ rte_vdev_uninit(const char *name)
>   	if (name == NULL)
>   		return -EINVAL;
>   
> -	rte_spinlock_lock(&vdev_device_list_lock);
> -
>   	dev = find_vdev(name);
>   	if (!dev) {
>   		ret = -ENOENT;
> -		goto unlock;
> +		return ret;
>   	}

Without that lock, all of this would be racy - find_dev would iterate a 
tailq that might change under its feet, and tailq_remove may be called 
with a pointer that has already been removed.

How about changing the lock to a recursive lock? Failsafe would be 
removing devices from within the same thread, correct?

>   
>   	ret = vdev_remove_driver(dev);
>   	if (ret)
> -		goto unlock;
> +		return ret;
>   
> +	rte_spinlock_lock(&vdev_device_list_lock);
>   	TAILQ_REMOVE(&vdev_device_list, dev, next);
>   	devargs = dev->device.devargs;
>   	rte_devargs_remove(devargs->bus->name, devargs->name);
>   	free(dev);
> -
> -unlock:
>   	rte_spinlock_unlock(&vdev_device_list_lock);
> +
>   	return ret;
>   }
>   
> 


-- 
Thanks,
Anatoly