Re: [RFC PATCH v2 16/19] RDMA/uverbs: Add back pointer to system file object

Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-12T17:56:17Z

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 10:28:27AM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 10:00:40AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 03:58:30PM -0700, ira.weiny@intel.com wrote:
> > > From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
> > >
> > > In order for MRs to be tracked against the open verbs context the ufile
> > > needs to have a pointer to hand to the GUP code.
> > >
> > > No references need to be taken as this should be valid for the lifetime
> > > of the context.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
> > > drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs.h | 1 +
> > > drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs_main.c | 1 +
> > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs.h b/drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs.h
> > > index 1e5aeb39f774..e802ba8c67d6 100644
> > > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs.h
> > > @@ -163,6 +163,7 @@ struct ib_uverbs_file {
> > > struct page *disassociate_page;
> > >
> > > struct xarray idr;
> > > + struct file *sys_file; /* backpointer to system file object */
> > > };
> >
> > The 'struct file' has a lifetime strictly shorter than the
> > ib_uverbs_file, which is kref'd on its own lifetime. Having a back
> > pointer like this is confouding as it will be invalid for some of the
> > lifetime of the struct.
>
> Ah... ok. I really thought it was the other way around.
>
> __fput() should not call ib_uverbs_close() until the last reference on struct
> file is released... What holds references to struct ib_uverbs_file past that?

Child fds hold onto the internal ib_uverbs_file until they are closed

> Perhaps I need to add this (untested)?
>
> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs_main.c
> b/drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs_main.c
> index f628f9e4c09f..654e774d9cf2 100644
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs_main.c
> @@ -1125,6 +1125,8 @@ static int ib_uverbs_close(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
> list_del_init(&file->list);
> mutex_unlock(&file->device->lists_mutex);
>
> + file->sys_file = NULL;

Now this has unlocked updates to that data.. you'd need some lock and
get not zero pattern

Jason