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:   Wed, 7 Nov 2018 22:59:42 -0800
From:   Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To:     "chouryzhou(??????)" <chouryzhou@tencent.com>
Cc:     "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "arve@android.com" <arve@android.com>,
        "tkjos@android.com" <tkjos@android.com>,
        "akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "devel@driverdev.osuosl.org" <devel@driverdev.osuosl.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] binder: ipc namespace support for android binder
Message-ID: <20181108065942.6gnb675xb2wuerrl@linux-r8p5>
References: <5FBCBE569E134E4CA167B91C0A77FD610198F6BB7D@EXMBX-SZMAIL022.tencent.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5FBCBE569E134E4CA167B91C0A77FD610198F6BB7D@EXMBX-SZMAIL022.tencent.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180323
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, chouryzhou(??????) wrote:
>@@ -63,6 +63,12 @@ struct ipc_namespace {
>        unsigned int    mq_msg_default;
>        unsigned int    mq_msgsize_default;
>
>+       /* next fields are for binder */
>+       struct mutex      binder_procs_lock;
>+       struct hlist_head binder_procs;
>+       struct mutex      binder_contexts_lock;
>+       struct hlist_head binder_contexts;

I don't think you want a mutex here protecting the binder_contexts list.
Afaict there is no concurrency going on: you only modify it in when doing
namespace init and exit (for which you have no serialization); do you even
need a lock here? Or at least I would think a more lightweight alternative
(rcu/spinlock/rwlock) would suffice.

Thanks,
Davidlohr