From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/12] VMCI: context implementation.
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 19:10:58 -0700
Message-ID: <20121030021058.GB1920@kroah.com>
References: <20121030005923.17788.21797.stgit@promb-2n-dhcp175.eng.vmware.com>
	<20121030010333.17788.94988.stgit@promb-2n-dhcp175.eng.vmware.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20121030010333.17788.94988.stgit@promb-2n-dhcp175.eng.vmware.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/virtualization>,
	<mailto:virtualization-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/virtualization/>
List-Post: <mailto:virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:virtualization-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization>,
	<mailto:virtualization-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org
Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org
To: George Zhang <georgezhang@vmware.com>
Cc: pv-drivers@vmware.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 06:03:42PM -0700, George Zhang wrote:
> +/*
> + * Releases the VMCI context. If this is the last reference to
> + * the context it will be deallocated. A context is created with
> + * a reference count of one, and on destroy, it is removed from
> + * the context list before its reference count is
> + * decremented. Thus, if we reach zero, we are sure that nobody
> + * else are about to increment it (they need the entry in the
> + * context list for that). This function musn't be called with a
> + * lock held.
> + */
> +void vmci_ctx_release(struct vmci_ctx *context)
> +{
> +	ASSERT(context);
> +	kref_put(&context->kref, ctx_free_ctx);
> +}
> +

Hm, are you _sure_ you should be calling this without a lock held?
That's usually kref-101, you MUST hold a lock when calling put,
otherwise you can race a kref_get() call, and all hell can break loose.

Because of this, some saner people (like Al Viro), have suggested that I
force the kref_put() and kref_get() calls pass in a spinlock just to
enforce this.

So, tell me what I'm missing here, and why you put the comment here
saying that it really is supposed to be called without a lock held?  How
is that safe?

confused,

greg k-h