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:   Tue, 14 Jan 2020 15:41:48 -0400
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To:     Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@intel.com>
Cc:     madhuparnabhowmik04@gmail.com, mike.marciniszyn@intel.com,
        paulmck@kernel.org, joel@joelfernandes.org, frextrite@gmail.com,
        linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] infiniband: hw: hfi1: verbs.c: Use built-in RCU list
 checking
Message-ID: <20200114194148.GD22037@ziepe.ca>
References: <20200114162345.19995-1-madhuparnabhowmik04@gmail.com>
 <20200114165740.GB22037@ziepe.ca>
 <74adec84-ec5b-ea1b-7adf-3f8608838259@intel.com>
 <25133367-6544-d0af-ae30-5178909748b1@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <25133367-6544-d0af-ae30-5178909748b1@intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 01:24:00PM -0500, Dennis Dalessandro wrote:
> On 1/14/2020 12:00 PM, Dennis Dalessandro wrote:
> > On 1/14/2020 11:57 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 09:53:45PM +0530,
> > > madhuparnabhowmik04@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > From: Madhuparna Bhowmik <madhuparnabhowmik04@gmail.com>
> > > > 
> > > > list_for_each_entry_rcu has built-in RCU and lock checking.
> > > > Pass cond argument to list_for_each_entry_rcu.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Madhuparna Bhowmik <madhuparnabhowmik04@gmail.com>
> > > >   drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/verbs.c | 2 +-
> > > >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/verbs.c
> > > > b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/verbs.c
> > > > index 089e201d7550..22f2d4fd2577 100644
> > > > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/verbs.c
> > > > @@ -515,7 +515,7 @@ static inline void hfi1_handle_packet(struct
> > > > hfi1_packet *packet,
> > > >                          opa_get_lid(packet->dlid, 9B));
> > > >           if (!mcast)
> > > >               goto drop;
> > > > -        list_for_each_entry_rcu(p, &mcast->qp_list, list) {
> > > > +        list_for_each_entry_rcu(p, &mcast->qp_list, list,
> > > > lockdep_is_held(&(ibp->rvp.lock))) {
> > > 
> > > Okay, this looks reasonable
> > > 
> > > Mike, Dennis, is this the right lock to test?
> > > 
> > 
> > I'm looking at that right now actually, I don't think this is correct.
> > Wanted to talk to Mike before I send a response though.
> > 
> > -Denny
> 
> That's definitely going to throw a ton of lock dep messages. It's not really
> the right lock either. Instead what we probably need to do is what we do in
> the non-multicast part of the code and take the rcu_read_lock().

Uh.. why is this using the _rcu varient without holding the rcu lock?
That is quite wrong already.

Jason