[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/3] xen-blkback: fix shutdown race
>>> On 03.02.14 at 17:58, Roger Pau MonnÃ<roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 29/01/14 09:52, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 28.01.14 at 18:43, Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> + free_req(blkif, pending_req); >>> + /* >>> + * Make sure the request is freed before releasing blkif, >>> + * or there could be a race between free_req and the >>> + * cleanup done in xen_blkif_free during shutdown. >>> + * >>> + * NB: The fact that we might try to wake up pending_free_wq >>> + * before drain_complete (in case there's a drain going on) >>> + * it's not a problem with our current implementation >>> + * because we can assure there's no thread waiting on >>> + * pending_free_wq if there's a drain going on, but it has >>> + * to be taken into account if the current model is changed. >>> + */ >>> + xen_blkif_put(blkif); >>> + if (atomic_read(&blkif->refcnt) <= 2) { >>> + if (atomic_read(&blkif->drain)) >>> + complete(&blkif->drain_complete); >>> } >>> - free_req(pending_req->blkif, pending_req); >>> } >>> } >> >> The put is still too early imo - you're explicitly accessing field in the >> structure immediately afterwards. This may not be an issue at >> present, but I think it's at least a latent one. >> >> Apart from that, the two if()s would - at least to me - be more >> clear if combined into one. > > In order to get rid of the race I had to introduce yet another atomic_t > in xen_blkif struct, which is something I don't really like, but I > could not see any other way to solve this. If that's fine I will resend > the series, here is the reworked patch: Mind explaining why you can't simply move the xen_blkif_put() down between the if() and the free_ref(). Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |