Re: [PATCH] eCryptfs: Clean up kthread synchronization

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Thu, 22 May 2008 16:16:25 -0500
Michael Halcrow <mhalcrow@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 12:41:42PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 May 2008 14:31:55 -0500
> > Michael Halcrow <mhalcrow@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > > > +void ecryptfs_destroy_kthread(void)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	struct ecryptfs_open_req tmp_req;
> > > > > +	struct ecryptfs_open_req *req;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	mutex_lock(&ecryptfs_kthread_ctl.mux);
> > > > > +	ecryptfs_kthread_ctl.flags |= ECRYPTFS_KTHREAD_ZOMBIE;
> > > > > +	list_for_each_entry(req, &ecryptfs_kthread_ctl.req_list,
> > > > > +			    kthread_ctl_list) {
> > > > > +		mutex_lock(&req->mux);
> > > > > +		req->flags |= ECRYPTFS_REQ_ZOMBIE;
> > > > > +		wake_up_process(req->requesting_task);
> > > > > +		mutex_unlock(&req->mux);
> > > > > +	}
> > > > > +	memset(&tmp_req, 0, sizeof(tmp_req));
> > > > > +	tmp_req.flags = ECRYPTFS_REQ_ZOMBIE;
> > > > > +	list_add_tail(&tmp_req.kthread_ctl_list,
> > > > > +		      &ecryptfs_kthread_ctl.req_list);
> > > > > +	mutex_unlock(&ecryptfs_kthread_ctl.mux);
> > > > > +	wake_up(&ecryptfs_kthread_ctl.wait);
> > > > > +}
> > > > 
> > > > eh?  We attach a local variable to a global list and then return?
> > > > That won't last very long.
> > > 
> > > Adding this dummy entry to the list is just my own way of getting the
> > > kthread to wake up and shut down. This actually works, albeit a little
> > > ugly. The list and its contents get dropped on the floor at this point
> > > because (ecryptfs_kthread_ctl.flags & ECRYPTFS_KTHREAD_ZOMBIE). The
> > > only consumer of this list (the kthread) checks for this flag
> > > immediately after getting the mux, and if it is there, it just
> > > exits. The only producer on this list (ecryptfs_privileged_open())
> > > checks for this flag immediately after getting the mux and bows out if
> > > it is set. In other words, once this flag is set, the list and its
> > > contents become untouchable by anything other than
> > > ecryptfs_destroy_kthread().
> > 
> > Unconvinced.
> > 
> > As soon as ecryptfs_destroy_kthread() returns, tmp_req is destroyed. 
> > But it remains on ecryptfs_kthread_ctl.req_list.
> 
> I intend for ecryptfs_kthread_ctl.req_list to be irrelevant once
> ecryptfs_destroy_kthread() grabs the mux and sets
> (ecryptfs_kthread_ctl.flags |= ECRYPTFS_KTHREAD_ZOMBIE); nobody will
> ever do anything with that list any more. The state of the list --
> including the dangling list pointer -- simply does not matter any
> more.

OK.

> > > 	memset(&tmp_req, 0, sizeof(tmp_req));
> > > 	tmp_req.flags = ECRYPTFS_REQ_ZOMBIE;
> > > 	list_add_tail(&tmp_req.kthread_ctl_list,
> > > 		      &ecryptfs_kthread_ctl.req_list);
> > > 	mutex_unlock(&ecryptfs_kthread_ctl.mux);
> > > 	wake_up(&ecryptfs_kthread_ctl.wait);
> > 
> > -> it's dead.

So the above horridly-wrong code is not needed at all, and tmp_req can
be removed.