lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jul]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] net/p9/trans_fd.c: fix double list_del()
From
Date
On 07/24/2018 12:19 PM, Dominique Martinet wrote:
> Tomas Bortoli wrote on Tue, Jul 24, 2018:
>>>> @@ -228,6 +226,7 @@ static void p9_conn_cancel(struct p9_conn *m, int err)
>>>> req->t_err = err;
>>>> p9_client_cb(m->client, req, REQ_STATUS_ERROR);
>>>> }
>>>> + spin_unlock(&m->client->lock);
>>>
>>> If you want to expand the ranges of client->lock, the cancel_list will not
>>> be necessary, you can optimize this code.
>>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, not. Moving the spin_lock() before the for makes the
>> crash appear again. This because the calls to list_move() in the for
>> before delete all the elements from req->req_list, so the list is empty,
>> another call to list_del() would trigger a double del.
>> That's why we hold the lock to update the status of all those requests..
>> otherwise we have again the race with p9_fd_cancel().
>
> What (I think) he meant is that since you're holding the lock all the
> way, you don't need to transfer all the items to a temporary list to
> loop on it immediately afterwards, but you could call the client cb
> directly.
>
Yeah that is possible.

> I'm personally not a fan of this approach as that would duplicate the
> code, even if the loop isn't big...

Yep

>
> This code is only called at disconnect time so I think using the extra
> list doesn't hurt anyone; but as usual do what you feel is better; I
> don't mind much either way.
>

I think it's fine as it is.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-07-24 12:48    [W:0.050 / U:2.056 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site