Message-ID: <1429710915.18561.72.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] fs: use a sequence counter instead of file_lock in
 fd_install
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Mateusz Guzik <mguzik@redhat.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Yann Droneaud <ydroneaud@opteya.com>,
        Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 06:55:15 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20150422133149.GA10455@mguzik>
References: <20150417230252.GE889@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
	 <20150420130633.GA2513@mguzik> <20150420134326.GC2513@mguzik>
	 <20150420151054.GD2513@mguzik>
	 <1429550126.7346.268.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
	 <1429562991.7346.290.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
	 <1429639543.7346.329.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
	 <20150421200624.GA16097@mguzik> <20150421201201.GB16097@mguzik>
	 <1429650413.18561.10.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
	 <20150422133149.GA10455@mguzik>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2080
Lines: 59

On Wed, 2015-04-22 at 15:31 +0200, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 02:06:53PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-04-21 at 22:12 +0200, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> > 
> > > in dup_fd:
> > >        for (i = open_files; i != 0; i--) {
> > >                 struct file *f = *old_fds++;
> > >                 if (f) {
> > >                         get_file(f);
> > > 
> > 
> > I see no new requirement here. f is either NULL or not.
> > multi threaded programs never had a guarantee dup_fd() would catch a non
> > NULL pointer here.
> > 
> 
> It's not about seeing NULL f or not, but using the right address for
> dereference.
> 
> If I read memory-barriers.txt right (see 'DATA DEPENDENCY BARRIERS'), it
> is possible that cpus like alpha will see a non-NULL pointer and then
> proceed to dereference *the old* (here: NULL) value.
> 
> Hence I suspect this needs smp_read_barrier_depends (along with
> ACCESS_ONCE).
> 
> Other consumers (e.g. procfs code) use rcu_dereference macro which does
> ends up using lockless_dereference macro, which in turn does:
> #define lockless_dereference(p) \
> ({ \
>         typeof(p) _________p1 = ACCESS_ONCE(p); \
> 	        smp_read_barrier_depends(); /* Dependency order vs. p
> 		above. */ \
> 		        (_________p1); \
> })
> 
> That said memory barriers are not exactly my strong suit, but I do
> believe my suspicion here is justified enough to ask someone with solid
> memory barrier-fu to comment.


Again, your comment has nothing to do with the patch.

If there is old data, it only can be a NULL. And it is fine, case was
_already_ handled.

It can not be an 'old' file pointer, because close() takes the spinlock.
spin_unlock() contains a write memory barrier, so the NULL pointer put
by close() would have been committed to memory.

This works also on alpha cpus.


--
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/