lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] rxrpc: Don't take call->user_mutex in rxrpc_new_incoming_call()
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 05:54:58PM +0000, David Howells wrote:
> Standard kernel mutexes cannot be used in any way from interrupt or softirq
> context, so the user_mutex which manages access to a call cannot be a mutex
> since on a new call the mutex must start off locked and be unlocked within
> the softirq handler to prevent userspace interfering with a call we're
> setting up.
>
> Commit a0855d24fc22d49cdc25664fb224caee16998683 ("locking/mutex: Complain
> upon mutex API misuse in IRQ contexts") causes big warnings to be splashed
> in dmesg for each a new call that comes in from the server. Whilst it
> *seems* like it should be okay, since the accept path uses trylock, there
> are issues with PI boosting and marking the wrong task as the owner.
>
> Fix this by not taking the mutex in the softirq path at all. It's not
> obvious that there should be any need for it as the state is set before the
> first notification is generated for the new call.
>
> There's also no particular reason why the link-assessing ping should be
> triggered inside the mutex. It's not actually transmitted there anyway,
> but rather it has to be deferred to a workqueue.
>
> Further, I don't think that there's any particular reason that the socket
> notification needs to be done from within rx->incoming_lock, so the amount
> of time that lock is held can be shortened too and the ping prepared before
> the new call notification is sent.
>

Assuming this works, this is the best solution possible! Excellent work.

(I was about to suggest something based on wait_var_event() inside each
mutex_lock(), but this is _much_ nicer)

Thanks!

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-18 20:18    [W:0.041 / U:1.832 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site