Re: [patch 5/5] futex: Cleanup the goto confusion in requeue_pi()

[Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>]

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 08:07:41PM -0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> out_unlock: does not only drop the locks, it also drops the refcount
> on the pi_state. Really intuitive.
> 
> Move the label after the put_pi_state() call and use 'break' in the
> error handling path of the requeue loop.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> ---
>  kernel/futex.c |    5 +++--
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> --- a/kernel/futex.c
> +++ b/kernel/futex.c
> @@ -1842,20 +1842,21 @@ static int futex_requeue(u32 __user *uad
>  				 */
>  				this->pi_state = NULL;
>  				put_pi_state(pi_state);
> -				goto out_unlock;
> +				break;
>  			}
>  		}
>  		requeue_futex(this, hb1, hb2, &key2);
>  		drop_count++;
>  	}
>  
> -out_unlock:
>  	/*
>  	 * We took an extra initial reference to the pi_state either
>  	 * in futex_proxy_trylock_atomic() or in lookup_pi_state(). We
>  	 * need to drop it here again.
>  	 */
>  	put_pi_state(pi_state);
> +
> +out_unlock:
>  	double_unlock_hb(hb1, hb2);
>  	wake_up_q(&wake_q);
>  	hb_waiters_dec(hb2);

Thanks for catching the leak Thomas, sorry I missed it :-/

I thought you missed one point early on shortly after retry_private: where we
goto out_unlock, but we haven't claimed the pi_state yet - so this appears to
have been another unnecessary (harmless) put_pi_state call previously.

For the series:

Reviewed-by: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>

As a follow-on, I think it might be worthwhile to create a symmetrical
get_pi_state() to the put_pi_state(), rather than handling the atomic_inc
directly.

And finally, while the break; in futex_requeue works, that function is quite
long and an explicit out_put_pi_state: label would make the intention clear and
also avoid inadvertently breaking the implicit behavior of the break.

Thanks,

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center