Re: [PATCHv7 3/3] vhost_net: a kernel-level virtio server

Michael S. Tsirkin
2009-11-04T13:45:48Z

On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 02:37:28PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 03:17:36PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 02:15:33PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 03:08:28PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 01:59:57PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > > > Fine?
> > > > >
> > > > > I cannot say -- are there paths that could drop the device beforehand?
> > > >
> > > > Do you mean drop the mm reference?
> > >
> > > No the reference to the device, which owns the mm for you.
> >
> > The device is created when file is open and destroyed
> > when file is closed. So I think the fs code handles the
> > reference counting for me: it won't call file cleanup
> > callback while some userspace process has the file open.
> > Right?
>
> Yes.
>
> But the semantics when someone inherits such a fd through exec
> or through file descriptor passing would be surely "interesting"
> You would still do IO on the old VM.
>
> I guess it would be a good way to confuse memory accounting schemes
> or administrators @)
> It would be all saner if this was all a single atomic step.
>
> -Andi

I have this atomic actually. A child process will first thing
do SET_OWNER: this is required before any other operation.

SET_OWNER atomically (under mutex) does two things:
- check that there is no other owner
- get mm and set current process as owner

I hope this addresses your concern?

--
MST