Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 22 Apr 2022 06:03:17 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     Imran Khan <imran.f.khan@oracle.com>
Cc:     viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        ebiederm@xmission.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 01/10] kernfs: Remove reference counting for
 kernfs_open_node.
Message-ID: <YmLRxWUnF/zflEO2@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <20220410023719.1752460-1-imran.f.khan@oracle.com>
 <20220410023719.1752460-2-imran.f.khan@oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220410023719.1752460-2-imran.f.khan@oracle.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 12:37:10PM +1000, Imran Khan wrote:
> @@ -768,15 +765,15 @@ void kernfs_drain_open_files(struct kernfs_node *kn)
>  	if (!(kn->flags & (KERNFS_HAS_MMAP | KERNFS_HAS_RELEASE)))
>  		return;
>  
> -	spin_lock_irq(&kernfs_open_node_lock);
>  	on = kn->attr.open;
> -	if (on)
> -		atomic_inc(&on->refcnt);
> -	spin_unlock_irq(&kernfs_open_node_lock);
>  	if (!on)
>  		return;
>
>  	mutex_lock(&kernfs_open_file_mutex);
> +	if (!kn->attr.open) {
> +		mutex_unlock(&kernfs_open_file_mutex);
> +		return;
> +	}

What if @on got freed and new one got allocated between the lockless check
and the locked check? Is there a reason to keep the lockless check at all?

>  	list_for_each_entry(of, &on->files, list) {
>  		struct inode *inode = file_inode(of->file);

Thanks.

-- 
tejun