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:   Thu, 28 Mar 2019 00:30:57 -0400
From:   Kimberly Brown <kimbrownkd@gmail.com>
To:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Cc:     Michael Kelley <mikelley@microsoft.com>,
        Long Li <longli@microsoft.com>,
        Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@microsoft.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@microsoft.com>,
        Dexuan Cui <decui@microsoft.com>,
        KY Srinivasan <kys@microsoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@microsoft.com>,
        "linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] Drivers: hv: vmbus: Fix race condition with new
 ring_buffer_info mutex
Message-ID: <20190328043057.GA2258@ubu-Virtual-Machine>
References: <cover.1550806305.git.kimbrownkd@gmail.com>
 <cover.1552592620.git.kimbrownkd@gmail.com>
 <262046fa9e89d5f483ecd5972d86f4f9608dbcc3.1552592620.git.kimbrownkd@gmail.com>
 <20190314154533.17c8a362@shemminger-XPS-13-9360>
 <20190317014927.GA60356@ubu-Virtual-Machine>
 <20190320130619.07e49c97@shemminger-XPS-13-9360>
 <20190321034752.GA6828@ubu-Virtual-Machine>
 <DM5PR2101MB091851BC7C55093D388514D9D7420@DM5PR2101MB0918.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <DM5PR2101MB091851BC7C55093D388514D9D7420@DM5PR2101MB0918.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 04:04:20PM +0000, Michael Kelley wrote:
> From: Kimberly Brown <kimbrownkd@gmail.com>  Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 8:48 PM
> > > > > Adding more locks will solve the problem but it seems like overkill.
> > > > > Why not either use a reference count or an RCU style access for the
> > > > > ring buffer?
> > > >
> > > > I agree that a reference count or RCU could also solve this problem.
> > > > Using mutex locks seemed like the most straightforward solution, but
> > > > I'll certainly switch to a different approach if it's better!
> > > >
> > > > Are you concerned about the extra memory required for the mutex locks,
> > > > read performance, or something else?
> > >
> > > Locks in control path are ok, but my concern is performance of the
> > > data path which puts packets in/out of rings. To keep reasonable performance,
> > > no additional locking should be added in those paths.
> > >
> > > So if data path is using RCU, can/should the control operations also
> > > use it?
> > 


Hi Stephen,

Do you have any additional questions or suggestions for this race
condition and the mutex locks? I think that your initial questions were
addressed in the responses below. If there's anything else, please let
me know!

Thanks,
Kim


> > The data path doesn't use RCU to protect the ring buffers.
> 
> My $.02:  The mutex is obtained only in the sysfs path and the "delete
> ringbuffers" path, neither of which is performance or concurrency sensitive. 
> There's no change to any path that reads or writes data from/to the ring
> buffers.  It seems like the mutex is the most straightforward solution to
> preventing sysfs from accessing the ring buffer info while the memory is
> being freed as part of "delete ringbuffers".
> 
> Michael