Message-ID: <4df6c3c1-7d52-6bfa-9b0d-365de5332c06@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 Jan 2022 11:36:58 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.4.1
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net v2 1/2] net/smc: Resolve the race between link
 group access and termination
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Wen Gu <guwen@linux.alibaba.com>, davem@davemloft.net,
        kuba@kernel.org
Cc:     linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dust.li@linux.alibaba.com,
        tonylu@linux.alibaba.com
References: <1640704432-76825-1-git-send-email-guwen@linux.alibaba.com>
 <1640704432-76825-2-git-send-email-guwen@linux.alibaba.com>
 <4ec6e460-96d1-fedc-96ff-79a98fd38de8@linux.ibm.com>
 <0a972bf8-1d7b-a211-2c11-50e86c87700e@linux.alibaba.com>
From:   Karsten Graul <kgraul@linux.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH
In-Reply-To: <0a972bf8-1d7b-a211-2c11-50e86c87700e@linux.alibaba.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 31/12/2021 10:44, Wen Gu wrote:
> On 2021/12/29 8:56 pm, Karsten Graul wrote:
>> On 28/12/2021 16:13, Wen Gu wrote:
>>> We encountered some crashes caused by the race between the access
>>> and the termination of link groups.
> What do you think about it?
> 

Hi Wen,

thank you, and I also wish you and your family a happy New Year!

Thanks for your detailed explanation, you convinced me of your idea to use
a reference counting! I think its a good solution for the various problems you describe.

I am still thinking that even if you saw no problems when conn->lgr is not NULL when the lgr
is already terminated there should be more attention on the places where conn->lgr is checked.
For example, in smc_cdc_get_slot_and_msg_send() there is a check for !conn->lgr with the intention
to avoid working with a terminated link group.
Should all checks for !conn->lgr be now replaced by the check for conn->freed ?? Does this make sense?