Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-55551-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 11:22:49 -0800
From: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
To: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
Cc: Daniel Wagner <dwagner@suse.de>, James Smart <james.smart@broadcom.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 12/12] nvmet-fc: use RCU list iterator for assoc_list
Message-ID: <ZcKHCXtXWVCdi9Ae@kbusch-mbp.mynextlight.net>
References: <20240131085112.21668-1-dwagner@suse.de>
 <20240131085112.21668-13-dwagner@suse.de>
 <b19e0b0f-6b1c-4126-931b-d7b0d01fb3da@suse.de>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b19e0b0f-6b1c-4126-931b-d7b0d01fb3da@suse.de>

On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 02:51:24PM +0900, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 1/31/24 16:51, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> > +		rcu_read_lock();
> > +		if (!nvmet_fc_assoc_exits(tgtport, ran)) {
> >   			assoc->association_id = ran;
> >   			list_add_tail_rcu(&assoc->a_list, &tgtport->assoc_list);
> > +			done = true;
> >   		}
> > +		rcu_read_unlock();
> >   		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tgtport->lock, flags);
> 
> Odd. You already take the tgtport lock, so there really is no point in using
> rcu_read_lock() here.

That's a interesting point, but I think it's harmless since there's no
rcu sync within the read section.

  https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html#Guaranteed%20Read-to-Write%20Upgrade

That said, the rcu_read_lock() seems like it should be moved to
nvmet_fc_assoc_exits() since that's the only part reading rcu protected
structures.