Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752057Ab2J3CKF (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Oct 2012 22:10:05 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f46.google.com ([209.85.220.46]:43874 "EHLO mail-pa0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751249Ab2J3CKD (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Oct 2012 22:10:03 -0400 Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 19:10:58 -0700 From: Greg KH To: George Zhang Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, pv-drivers@vmware.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/12] VMCI: context implementation. Message-ID: <20121030021058.GB1920@kroah.com> References: <20121030005923.17788.21797.stgit@promb-2n-dhcp175.eng.vmware.com> <20121030010333.17788.94988.stgit@promb-2n-dhcp175.eng.vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121030010333.17788.94988.stgit@promb-2n-dhcp175.eng.vmware.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1459 Lines: 38 On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 06:03:42PM -0700, George Zhang wrote: > +/* > + * Releases the VMCI context. If this is the last reference to > + * the context it will be deallocated. A context is created with > + * a reference count of one, and on destroy, it is removed from > + * the context list before its reference count is > + * decremented. Thus, if we reach zero, we are sure that nobody > + * else are about to increment it (they need the entry in the > + * context list for that). This function musn't be called with a > + * lock held. > + */ > +void vmci_ctx_release(struct vmci_ctx *context) > +{ > + ASSERT(context); > + kref_put(&context->kref, ctx_free_ctx); > +} > + Hm, are you _sure_ you should be calling this without a lock held? That's usually kref-101, you MUST hold a lock when calling put, otherwise you can race a kref_get() call, and all hell can break loose. Because of this, some saner people (like Al Viro), have suggested that I force the kref_put() and kref_get() calls pass in a spinlock just to enforce this. So, tell me what I'm missing here, and why you put the comment here saying that it really is supposed to be called without a lock held? How is that safe? confused, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/