Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 07 Jul 2013 01:24:44 +0800 | From | vaughan <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] [SCSI] sg: fix race condition when do exclusive open |
| |
On 07/06/2013 01:39 AM, Jörn Engel wrote: > Sorry about replying so late. > > On Mon, 17 June 2013 21:10:53 +0800, vaughan wrote: >> Rewrite the last patch. >> Add a new field 'toopen' in sg_device to count ongoing sg_open's. By checking both 'toopen' and 'exclude' marks when do exclusive open, old race conditions can be avoided. >> Replace global sg_open_exclusive_lock with a per device lock - sfd_lock. Since sfds list is now protected by the lock owned by the same sg_device, sg_index_lock becomes a real global lock to only protect sg devices lookup. >> Also did some cleanup, such as remove get_exclude() and rename set_exclude() to clear_exclude(). >> > ... >> @@ -171,10 +168,10 @@ typedef struct sg_device { /* holds the state of each scsi generic device */ >> wait_queue_head_t o_excl_wait; /* queue open() when O_EXCL in use */ >> int sg_tablesize; /* adapter's max scatter-gather table size */ >> u32 index; /* device index number */ >> - /* sfds is protected by sg_index_lock */ >> + spinlock_t sfd_lock; /* protect sfds, exclude, toopen */ >> struct list_head sfds; >> + int toopen; /* number of who are ready to open sg */ > ^ > I think the 'toopen' is a bad choice. I'm having trouble wrapping my > head around the semantics of this variable, your description feels a > bit handwavy, the main noun is missing in the command above, I think I > found one more overflow bug,... > > What you ended up doing is reimplement a rw_semaphone. Why not use > one instead? down_write() for exclusive access, down_read() for > non-exclusive, _trylock variants for nonblocking opens, etc. The critical part of open is to add a new sfd to the list and its protected by the spin_lock(sg_index_lock previously) well. So I added an counter as a sign rather than introducing another spinlock or mutex which means I should deal with potential deadlock. The code may be simpler with a rwsem implementation as you suggest, I'll modify it in this way.
There is no overflow bug, I eliminated it with the following line :) if (!sdp->exclude && sdp->toopen != INT_MAX) { ...
Do you agree that I use a per device spin_lock 'sfd_lock' to protect sfds list and leave sg_index_lock only protect the global sg device lookup? I think it's reasonable for concurrency.
Thanks, Vaughan
> > Would this work?
> > Jörn > > -- > I've never met a human being who would want to read 17,000 pages of > documentation, and if there was, I'd kill him to get him out of the > gene pool. > -- Joseph Costello
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |