From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/15] KVM: Fix racy in kvm_free_assigned_irq
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 22:10:37 -0200
Message-ID: <20090102001037.GA5835@amt.cnet>
References: <20081225115609.GA10087@syang10-desktop> <200812301014.10487.sheng@linux.intel.com> <20081230164551.GA5826@amt.cnet> <200812311343.55772.sheng@linux.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Amit Shah <amshah@redhat.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, Amit Shah <amit.shah@redhat.com>,
	"Han, Weidong" <weidong.han@intel.com>
To: Sheng Yang <sheng@linux.intel.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:51525 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1754460AbZABAK5 (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 1 Jan 2009 19:10:57 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200812311343.55772.sheng@linux.intel.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 01:43:54PM +0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 December 2008 00:45:51 Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 10:14:09AM +0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
> > > > There is one remaining issue: kvm_assigned_dev_interrupt_work_handler
> > > > can re-enable the interrupt for KVM_ASSIGNED_DEV_GUEST_MSI case.
> > > > Perhaps you need a new flag to indicate shutdown (so the host IRQ won't
> > > > be reenabled).
> > >
> > > Is it already covered by disable_irq_no_sync() before cancel_work_sync()?
> > > I've noted this in my comment: the irq may be disabled nested(once for
> > > MSI and twice for INTx), but I think it's fine for we're going to free
> > > it.
> >
> > The problem is that the irq can be re-enabled in
> > kvm_assigned_dev_interrupt_work_handler:
> >
> >
> > context 1               |    context 2
> >
> > disable_irq_nosync
> >                             kvm_assigned_dev_interrupt_work_handler
> >                             enable_irq
> > cancel_work_sync
> >
> > free_irq
> >
> 
> Um... My understanding is a little different...
> 
> Before context1 execute disable_irq_nosync(), in irq handler, 
> disable_irq_nosync() would also been executed. So only one enable_irq() is not 
> really enable irq here, which can cover the window at all. That's what I means 
> nested disable irq...

You're right. There have been two disable_irq calls.

OK, looks good to me.