public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
	Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@quicinc.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: sboyd@kernel.org, rafael@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] devcoredump : Serialize devcd_del work
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 17:21:18 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87ilr15ekx.ffs@tglx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e59d076bc05ed319732ac3e234e423affae1cafe.camel@sipsolutions.net>

On Fri, Apr 22 2022 at 15:53, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Fri, 2022-04-22 at 15:41 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
>> On Tue, 2022-04-19 at 15:57 +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
>> >    INIT_DELAYED_WORK
>> >    schedule_delayed_work
>> > 
>> 
>> Wouldn't it be easier to simply schedule this before adding it to sysfs
>> and sending the uevent?

Only if it's guaranteed that the timer will not expire before
add_device() succeeds. It's likely, but there is virt....

> Hm. I think that would solve this problem, but not all of the problems
> here ...
>
> Even with your change, I believe it's still racy wrt. disabled_store(),
> since that flushes the work but devcd_data_write() remains reachable
> (and might in fact be waiting for the mutex after your change), so I
> think we need an additional flag somewhere (in addition to the mutex) to
> serialize all of these things against each other.

Plus there is disabled_store() which iterates over the devices and
reschedules the work. How is that supposed to be protected against a
concurrent devcd_del()?

Why needs disabled_store() to do that at all?

Thanks,

        tglx

  reply	other threads:[~2022-04-22 15:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-04-19 10:27 [PATCH] devcoredump : Serialize devcd_del work Mukesh Ojha
2022-04-22 10:03 ` Mukesh Ojha
2022-04-22 12:13   ` Greg KH
2022-04-22 13:55     ` Greg KH
2022-04-22 13:41 ` Johannes Berg
2022-04-22 13:53   ` Johannes Berg
2022-04-22 15:21     ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2022-04-25 13:17     ` Mukesh Ojha
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2022-05-02 15:34 Mukesh Ojha

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=87ilr15ekx.ffs@tglx \
    --to=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=quic_mojha@quicinc.com \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=sboyd@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox