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;
Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley
        Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United
        Kingdom.
        Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903
From:   David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20181126165606.GA11282@andrea>
References: <20181126165606.GA11282@andrea> <20181017164848.GA9795@andrea> <20181017151134.GA8966@andrea> <153978619457.8478.3813964117489247515.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <153978621809.8478.2198040871218302573.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <14408.1539790333@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <26942.1543249596@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
To:     Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
Cc:     dhowells@redhat.com, gregkh@linux-foundation.org,
        Kiran Kumar Modukuri <kiran.modukuri@gmail.com>,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, sandeen@redhat.com,
        linux-cachefs@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] fscache: Fix race in fscache_op_complete() due to split atomic_sub & read
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <4282.1543416204.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:43:24 +0000
Message-ID: <4283.1543416204@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com> wrote:

> > > > > > Fix this by using atomic_sub_return() instead of two calls.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Seems a case for atomic_sub_return_relaxed()... why not?
> > > > 
> > > > Ummm...  In that case, should it be atomic_sub_return_release()?
> > > 
> > > Hard to tell for me: your diff./changelog is all I know about fs-cache
> > > ... (and this suggests -no-, given that atomic_sub() and atomic_read()
> > > provide no ordering...); good question though. ;-)
> > 
> > Yeah, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be stricter than 'relaxed'.
> > It's kind of like an unlock/release operation, so I think 'release' is
> > probably the minimum requirement.
> 
> Sure.  My point was: those operations are currently not atomic _and_
> they provide no ordering; I think that the above commit message does
> a good work in explaining *why* we need atomicity, but can't say the
> same for the memory-ordering requirement.

Having discussed it with Paul McKenney and thought about it some more, I think
relaxed is probably okay since there isn't a pair of variables that need
ordering.

David