Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
Cc:     Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@cisco.com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>, vishal.l.verma@intel.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
References: <161117153248.2853729.2452425259045172318.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <161117153776.2853729.6944617921517514510.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>
From:   Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>
Message-ID: <809823fb-6eb6-8ce9-c49a-d85b03897fc7@deltatee.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Jan 2021 12:50:43 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <161117153776.2853729.6944617921517514510.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] cdev: Finish the cdev api with queued mode support
Precedence: bulk


On 2021-01-20 12:38 p.m., Dan Williams wrote:
> ...common reference count handling scenarios were addressed, but the
> shutdown-synchronization problem was only mentioned as something driver
> developers need to be aware in the following note:
> 
>     NOTE: This guarantees that associated sysfs callbacks are not running
>     or runnable, however any cdevs already open will remain and their fops
>     will still be callable even after this function returns.
> 
> Remove that responsibility from driver developers with the concept of a
> 'queued' mode for cdevs.

I find the queued name confusing. What's being queued?

> +static const struct file_operations cdev_queued_fops = {
> +	.owner = THIS_MODULE,
> +	.open = cdev_queued_open,
> +	.unlocked_ioctl = cdev_queued_ioctl,
> +	.compat_ioctl = compat_ptr_ioctl,
> +	.llseek = noop_llseek,
> +};

Why do we only protect these fops? I'd find it a bit confusing to have
ioctl protected from use after del, but not write/read/etc.

Logan