linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] fs: aio fix rcu lookup
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 20:01:14 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110118190114.GA5070@quack.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikgsGHJ+q6=We_zPAivyABq+z2f6Atv6ZScLYOU@mail.gmail.com>

  Hi,

On Tue 18-01-11 10:24:24, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 6:07 AM, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Nick Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> writes:
> >> Do you agree with the theoretical problem? I didn't try to
> >> write a racer to break it yet. Inserting a delay before the
> >> get_ioctx might do the trick.
> >
> > I'm not convinced, no.  The last reference to the kioctx is always the
> > process, released in the exit_aio path, or via sys_io_destroy.  In both
> > cases, we cancel all aios, then wait for them all to complete before
> > dropping the final reference to the context.
> 
> That wouldn't appear to prevent a concurrent thread from doing an
> io operation that requires ioctx lookup, and taking the last reference
> after the io_cancel thread drops the ref.
> 
> > So, while I agree that what you wrote is better, I remain unconvinced of
> > it solving a real-world problem.  Feel free to push it in as a cleanup,
> > though.
> 
> Well I think it has to be technically correct first. If there is indeed a
> guaranteed ref somehow, it just needs a comment.
  Hmm, the code in io_destroy() indeed looks fishy. We delete the ioctx
from the hash table and set ioctx->dead which is supposed to stop
lookup_ioctx() from finding it (see the !ctx->dead check in
lookup_ioctx()). There's even a comment in io_destroy() saying:
        /*
         * Wake up any waiters.  The setting of ctx->dead must be seen
         * by other CPUs at this point.  Right now, we rely on the
         * locking done by the above calls to ensure this consistency.
         */
But since lookup_ioctx() is called without any lock or barrier nothing
really seems to prevent the list traversal and ioctx->dead test to happen
before io_destroy() and get_ioctx() after io_destroy().

But wouldn't the right fix be to call synchronize_rcu() in io_destroy()?
Because with your fix we could still return 'dead' ioctx and I don't think
we are supposed to do that...

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR

  parent reply	other threads:[~2011-01-18 19:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-01-14  1:35 [patch] fs: aio fix rcu lookup Nick Piggin
2011-01-14 14:52 ` Jeff Moyer
2011-01-14 15:00   ` Nick Piggin
2011-01-17 19:07     ` Jeff Moyer
2011-01-17 23:24       ` Nick Piggin
2011-01-18 17:21         ` Jeff Moyer
2011-01-18 19:01         ` Jan Kara [this message]
2011-01-18 22:17           ` Nick Piggin
2011-01-18 23:00             ` Jeff Moyer
2011-01-18 23:05               ` Nick Piggin
2011-01-18 23:52             ` Jan Kara
2011-01-19  0:20               ` Nick Piggin
2011-01-19 13:21                 ` Jan Kara
2011-01-19 16:03                   ` Nick Piggin
2011-01-19 16:50                     ` Jan Kara
2011-01-19 17:37                       ` Nick Piggin
2011-01-20 20:21                         ` Jan Kara
2011-01-19 19:13                   ` Jeff Moyer
2011-01-19 19:46                     ` Jeff Moyer
2011-01-19 20:18                       ` Nick Piggin
2011-01-19 20:32                         ` Jeff Moyer
2011-01-19 20:45                           ` Nick Piggin
2011-01-19 21:03                             ` Jeff Moyer
2011-01-19 21:20                               ` Nick Piggin
2011-01-20  4:03                                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-01-20 18:31                                   ` Nick Piggin
2011-01-20 20:02                                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-01-20 20:15                                       ` Eric Dumazet
2011-01-21 21:22                                         ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-01-20 20:16                                     ` Jan Kara
2011-01-20 21:16                                       ` Jeff Moyer
2011-02-01 16:24                                       ` Jan Kara

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=20110118190114.GA5070@quack.suse.cz \
    --to=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=jmoyer@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=npiggin@gmail.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).