From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 305ABC433DB for ; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 20:24:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5416064F41 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 20:24:54 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 5416064F41 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:43248 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l7Ohp-0000ir-2N for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Wed, 03 Feb 2021 15:24:53 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:60446) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l7Ogw-0000Fg-BQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 03 Feb 2021 15:23:58 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:39704) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l7Ogu-0002fK-6D for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 03 Feb 2021 15:23:57 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1612383834; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=5yQrMtlmdBXU4KUoXeg61lwOv8AYMeNU/K2OAwgT1B4=; b=DNe90Rwly9Pxfw5DKFL+mnUB6NsPciQVK7Yk9/7/KR+HyjJ7KDBBvCYrbQYBJuGQnHjZY3 DCAivGYRx7NPu5LFtBrtpS3jxeTF6Y+mE6DhW/MZ9eMk2Err4QGwpQN3eVrnGG6HjFTq2o m8JLtPuMmGRhO+BqYPYW3Sm5GX+sgYY= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-59-e7ziUzG4N4ChFO-9fmv2sA-1; Wed, 03 Feb 2021 15:23:52 -0500 X-MC-Unique: e7ziUzG4N4ChFO-9fmv2sA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F7161800D50; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 20:23:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from horse.redhat.com (ovpn-116-88.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.116.88]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ECAF5B4AE; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 20:23:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by horse.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 10451) id B543522054F; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 15:23:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2021 15:23:44 -0500 From: Vivek Goyal To: Greg Kurz Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] virtiofsd: vu_dispatch locking should never fail Message-ID: <20210203202344.GF3307@redhat.com> References: <20210203182434.93870-1-groug@kaod.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210203182434.93870-1-groug@kaod.org> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.11 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=vgoyal@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.205.24.124; envelope-from=vgoyal@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -32 X-Spam_score: -3.3 X-Spam_bar: --- X-Spam_report: (-3.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.539, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: virtio-fs@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 07:24:34PM +0100, Greg Kurz wrote: > pthread_rwlock_rdlock() and pthread_rwlock_wrlock() can fail if a > deadlock condition is detected or the current thread already owns > the lock. They can also fail, like pthread_rwlock_unlock(), if the > mutex wasn't properly initialized. None of these are ever expected > to happen with fv_VuDev::vu_dispatch_rwlock. > > Some users already check the return value and assert, some others > don't. Introduce rdlock/wrlock/unlock wrappers that just do the > former and use them everywhere for improved consistency and > robustness. > > This is just cleanup. It doesn't fix any actual issue. > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kurz > --- Reviewed-by: Vivek Goyal Vivek > > v2: - open-code helpers instead of defining them with a macro (Vivek, Stefan) > - fixed rd/wr typo in fv_queue_thread() (Stefan) > - make it clear in the changelog this is just cleanup (Stefan) > > tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- > 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c b/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c > index ddcefee4272f..523ee64fb7ae 100644 > --- a/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c > +++ b/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_virtio.c > @@ -187,6 +187,31 @@ static void copy_iov(struct iovec *src_iov, int src_count, > } > } > > +/* > + * pthread_rwlock_rdlock() and pthread_rwlock_wrlock can fail if > + * a deadlock condition is detected or the current thread already > + * owns the lock. They can also fail, like pthread_rwlock_unlock(), > + * if the mutex wasn't properly initialized. None of these are ever > + * expected to happen. > + */ > +static void vu_dispatch_rdlock(struct fv_VuDev *vud) > +{ > + int ret = pthread_rwlock_rdlock(&vud->vu_dispatch_rwlock); > + assert(ret == 0); > +} > + > +static void vu_dispatch_wrlock(struct fv_VuDev *vud) > +{ > + int ret = pthread_rwlock_wrlock(&vud->vu_dispatch_rwlock); > + assert(ret == 0); > +} > + > +static void vu_dispatch_unlock(struct fv_VuDev *vud) > +{ > + int ret = pthread_rwlock_unlock(&vud->vu_dispatch_rwlock); > + assert(ret == 0); > +} > + > /* > * Called back by ll whenever it wants to send a reply/message back > * The 1st element of the iov starts with the fuse_out_header > @@ -240,12 +265,12 @@ int virtio_send_msg(struct fuse_session *se, struct fuse_chan *ch, > > copy_iov(iov, count, in_sg, in_num, tosend_len); > > - pthread_rwlock_rdlock(&qi->virtio_dev->vu_dispatch_rwlock); > + vu_dispatch_rdlock(qi->virtio_dev); > pthread_mutex_lock(&qi->vq_lock); > vu_queue_push(dev, q, elem, tosend_len); > vu_queue_notify(dev, q); > pthread_mutex_unlock(&qi->vq_lock); > - pthread_rwlock_unlock(&qi->virtio_dev->vu_dispatch_rwlock); > + vu_dispatch_unlock(qi->virtio_dev); > > req->reply_sent = true; > > @@ -403,12 +428,12 @@ int virtio_send_data_iov(struct fuse_session *se, struct fuse_chan *ch, > > ret = 0; > > - pthread_rwlock_rdlock(&qi->virtio_dev->vu_dispatch_rwlock); > + vu_dispatch_rdlock(qi->virtio_dev); > pthread_mutex_lock(&qi->vq_lock); > vu_queue_push(dev, q, elem, tosend_len); > vu_queue_notify(dev, q); > pthread_mutex_unlock(&qi->vq_lock); > - pthread_rwlock_unlock(&qi->virtio_dev->vu_dispatch_rwlock); > + vu_dispatch_unlock(qi->virtio_dev); > > err: > if (ret == 0) { > @@ -558,12 +583,12 @@ out: > fuse_log(FUSE_LOG_DEBUG, "%s: elem %d no reply sent\n", __func__, > elem->index); > > - pthread_rwlock_rdlock(&qi->virtio_dev->vu_dispatch_rwlock); > + vu_dispatch_rdlock(qi->virtio_dev); > pthread_mutex_lock(&qi->vq_lock); > vu_queue_push(dev, q, elem, 0); > vu_queue_notify(dev, q); > pthread_mutex_unlock(&qi->vq_lock); > - pthread_rwlock_unlock(&qi->virtio_dev->vu_dispatch_rwlock); > + vu_dispatch_unlock(qi->virtio_dev); > } > > pthread_mutex_destroy(&req->ch.lock); > @@ -596,7 +621,6 @@ static void *fv_queue_thread(void *opaque) > qi->qidx, qi->kick_fd); > while (1) { > struct pollfd pf[2]; > - int ret; > > pf[0].fd = qi->kick_fd; > pf[0].events = POLLIN; > @@ -645,8 +669,7 @@ static void *fv_queue_thread(void *opaque) > break; > } > /* Mutual exclusion with virtio_loop() */ > - ret = pthread_rwlock_rdlock(&qi->virtio_dev->vu_dispatch_rwlock); > - assert(ret == 0); /* there is no possible error case */ > + vu_dispatch_rdlock(qi->virtio_dev); > pthread_mutex_lock(&qi->vq_lock); > /* out is from guest, in is too guest */ > unsigned int in_bytes, out_bytes; > @@ -672,7 +695,7 @@ static void *fv_queue_thread(void *opaque) > } > > pthread_mutex_unlock(&qi->vq_lock); > - pthread_rwlock_unlock(&qi->virtio_dev->vu_dispatch_rwlock); > + vu_dispatch_unlock(qi->virtio_dev); > > /* Process all the requests. */ > if (!se->thread_pool_size && req_list != NULL) { > @@ -799,7 +822,6 @@ int virtio_loop(struct fuse_session *se) > while (!fuse_session_exited(se)) { > struct pollfd pf[1]; > bool ok; > - int ret; > pf[0].fd = se->vu_socketfd; > pf[0].events = POLLIN; > pf[0].revents = 0; > @@ -825,12 +847,11 @@ int virtio_loop(struct fuse_session *se) > assert(pf[0].revents & POLLIN); > fuse_log(FUSE_LOG_DEBUG, "%s: Got VU event\n", __func__); > /* Mutual exclusion with fv_queue_thread() */ > - ret = pthread_rwlock_wrlock(&se->virtio_dev->vu_dispatch_rwlock); > - assert(ret == 0); /* there is no possible error case */ > + vu_dispatch_wrlock(se->virtio_dev); > > ok = vu_dispatch(&se->virtio_dev->dev); > > - pthread_rwlock_unlock(&se->virtio_dev->vu_dispatch_rwlock); > + vu_dispatch_unlock(se->virtio_dev); > > if (!ok) { > fuse_log(FUSE_LOG_ERR, "%s: vu_dispatch failed\n", __func__); > -- > 2.26.2 >