Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 26 Jan 2018 19:39:55 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>,
        Arve Hjonnevag <arve@android.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ashmem: Fix lockdep issue during llseek
Message-ID: <20180126193954.GB13338@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20180126024649.200330-1-joelaf@google.com>
 <20180126031346.GW13338@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <CAJWu+oo+Y4eNTX+vMceYTB-FF5A190OHP7yPKkDGYH-jTqSsmQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJWu+oo+Y4eNTX+vMceYTB-FF5A190OHP7yPKkDGYH-jTqSsmQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 11:23:47AM -0800, Joel Fernandes wrote:

> I was just trying to be careful with the least intrusive solution
> since I'm not the original author of the driver.

Sure, but that needs a proof that it *is* a solution...

> But one usecase for the mutex is with concurrent lseeks, you can end
> up with a file->f_pos that is different from the latest update to
> asma->file->f_pos. A barrier could fix this it too though. Any
> thoughts?

lseek(2) is serialized against lseek(2) and read(2) on the same struct
file - see fdget_pos() for details.

ashmem_mutex really does look like an overkill - something much lighter
should serve just fine...