Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 12 Jun 2022 16:46:54 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     Imran Khan <imran.f.khan@oracle.com>
Cc:     viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v4 1/4] kernfs: make ->attr.open RCU protected.
Message-ID: <YqalHuEB6OjjUosV@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <20220602063907.136569-1-imran.f.khan@oracle.com>
 <20220602063907.136569-2-imran.f.khan@oracle.com>
 <YqYpTShTDLvAp4vx@slm.duckdns.org>
 <6d1c5a49-fc16-5fc7-e527-8cb91ec0d25c@oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6d1c5a49-fc16-5fc7-e527-8cb91ec0d25c@oracle.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hello,

On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 12:36:12PM +1000, Imran Khan wrote:
> >> +static struct kernfs_open_node *
> >> +kernfs_check_open_node_protected(struct kernfs_node *kn)
> >> +{
> >> +	return rcu_dereference_check(kn->attr.open,
> >> +				      lockdep_is_held(&kernfs_open_file_mutex));
> >> +}
> > 
> > I don't understand why the above is necessary. Whether you're a reader or
> > writer, you can deref the pointer w/ _protected as long as you're holding
> > the lock, right?
> 
> As per [1], we should use rcu_dereference_check() for the reader side when we
> are holding the lock.

Hmm.... can you quote the exact phrase that you took the above from?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun