Re: [PATCH 2/5] rds: ib: replace spin_lock_irq with spin_lock_irqsave

[Yanjun Zhu <yanjun.zhu-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]

Sorry. I have no test case to show some issue.
But from Linux Kernel Development Second Edition by Robert Love.

Use spin_lock_irq is dangerous since spin_unlock_irq unconditionally 
enables interrupts.

We can assume the following scenario:

--->the interrupt is disabled.

         spin_lock_irq(lock_ptr);   <---this will disable interrupt again
         list_del(&ic->ib_node);
         spin_unlock_irq(lock_ptr); <---this will enable interrupt

---->the interrupt is enabled.

our code change the state of interrupt. This will make potential risk.
But spin_lock_irqsave/spin_unlock_irqrestore will not make potential risk.

Zhu Yanjun
On 2017/3/10 0:50, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> On 3/8/2017 11:26 PM, Zhu Yanjun wrote:
>> It is difficult to make sure the state of the interrupt when this
>> function is called. As such, it is safer to use spin_lock_irqsave
>> than spin_lock_irq.
>>
> There is no reason to hold irqs  and as such the code path is
> safe from irq context. I don't see need of this change unless
> you have test case which showed some issue.
>
> Regards,
> Santosh
>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html