Re: [PATCH v2] 9p/trans_fd: mark concurrent read and writes to p9_conn->err

[Ignacio Encinas Rubio <ignacio.encinas@semidynamics.com>]

On 16/3/25 22:24, Dominique Martinet wrote:
> Ignacio Encinas wrote on Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 07:08:19PM +0100:
>> Changes in v2:
>>
>> Drop unnecessary READ_ONCE in p9_fd_request (that I added in v1)
> 
> Ah, sorry; I think you misread my comment for v1 (or perhaps you
> disagreed in the response and I misread that!)

Yeah, I disagreed. Sorry about the misunderstanding. As these are not
strictly necessary I thought it would be best to not add them.

> I was thinking that style-wise it's better to access the err field
> through READ/WRITE_ONCE everywhere, even if it's locked; so suggested
> this diff from v1:
> ----
> diff --git a/net/9p/trans_fd.c b/net/9p/trans_fd.c
> index f163f6fc7354..65270c028f52 100644
> --- a/net/9p/trans_fd.c
> +++ b/net/9p/trans_fd.c
> @@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ static void p9_conn_cancel(struct p9_conn *m, int err)
>  
>         spin_lock(&m->req_lock);
>  
> -       if (m->err) {
> +       if (READ_ONCE(m->err)) {
>                 spin_unlock(&m->req_lock);
>                 return;
>         }
> ----

Got it. I'll follow your recommendation for the v3. I'll reflect it in
the commit message just in case someone does a git blame and wonders
about these couple of READ_ONCEs.

> 
> OTOH, looking at this again:
>> --  if (m->err < 0) {
>> -+  if (READ_ONCE(m->err) < 0) {
>> -           spin_unlock(&m->req_lock);
>> -           return m->err;
> 
> There's this access out of the lock so perhaps this should look like
> this instead (with or without the READ_ONCE)
> 
> +       err = READ_ONCE(m->err);
> +       if (err < 0) {
>                 spin_unlock(&m->req_lock);
> -               return m->err;
> +               return err;

Oops, this is embarrassing... Thanks for catching it.

> Anyway, m->err is only written exactly once so it doesn't matter the
> least in practice, 

I think this one deserves a fix, I disagree :)

> and it looks like gcc generates exactly the same
> thing (... even if I make that `return READ_ONCE(m->err)` which
> surprises me a bit..), so this is just yak shaving.

This is weird... I'll double check because it shouldn't generate the
same code as far as I know.

> I don't care all that much so I'll just pick this v2 as it's more
> consistent, but feel free to send a v3 if you have an opinion, or if
> someone else chips in.

To summarize, my plan is sending a v3 with the couple of READ_ONCE you
suggested and fixing the unlocked plain access.

Thanks!