Re: [PATCH v3] netfilter: Xtables: idletimer target implementation

[Luciano Coelho <luciano.coelho@nokia.com>]

On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 12:07 +0200, ext Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Luciano Coelho wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 19:48 +0200, Coelho Luciano (Nokia-D/Helsinki)
> > wrote:
> >   
> >> On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 17:18 +0200, ext Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >>     
> >>>>>> +	timer = __idletimer_tg_find_by_label(info->label);
> >>>>>> +	if (!timer) {
> >>>>>> +		spin_unlock(&list_lock);
> >>>>>> +		timer = idletimer_tg_create(info);
> >>>>>>   
> >>>>>>             
> >>>>> How does this prevent creating the same timer twice?
> >>>>>           
> >>>> The timer will only be created if __idletimer_tg_find_by_label() returns
> >>>> NULL, which means that no timer with that label has been found.  "info"
> >>>> won't be the same if info->label is different, right? Or can it change
> >>>> on the fly?
> >>>>         
> >>> One thing to be generally aware about is that things could potentially
> >>> be instantiated by another entity between the time a label was looked up
> >>> with negative result and the time one tries to add it.
> >>> It may thus be required to extend keeping the lock until after
> >>> idletimer_tg_create, in other words, lookup and create must be atomic
> >>> to the rest of the world.
> >>>       
> >> Ahh, sure! I missed the actual point of Patrick's question.  I had the
> >> idletimer_tg_create() inside the lock, but when I added the
> >> sysfs_create_file() there (which can sleep), I screwed up with the
> >> locking.
> >>
> >> I'll move the sysfs file creation to outside that function so I can keep
> >> the lock until after the timer is added to the list.  Thanks for
> >> clarifying!
> >>     
> >
> > Hmmm... after struggling with this for a while, I think it's not really
> > possible to simply create the sysfs file outside of the lock, because if
> > the sysfs creation fails, we will again risk a race condition.
> >
> > I think the only way is to delay the sysfs file creation and do it in a
> > workqueue.
> >   
> 
> Why don't you simply use a mutex instead of the spinlock? It would be better
> to only do the lookup once and store the timer pointer in the target
> structure
> anyways.

Wow! Again I have been totally blind and focusing only in a solution for
the spinlock problem, while using a mutex would ease things up quite a
lot! Thanks for the suggestion, I'll re-spin my patch (pun intended?)
with a mutex.

I also agree that it makes more sense to lookup and store the timer in
the targe.

-- 
Cheers,
Luca.