lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Nov]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] virtio-scsi: Fix incorrect lock release order in virtscsi_kick_cmd
From
Date
Hi Paolo,

On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 09:42 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 09/11/2012 07:29, Nicholas A. Bellinger ha scritto:
> > From: Nicholas Bellinger <nab@linux-iscsi.org>
> >
> > This patch fixes a regression bug in virtscsi_kick_cmd() that relinquishes
> > the acquired spinlocks in the incorrect order using the wrong spin_unlock
> > macros, namely releasing vq->vq_lock before tgt->tgt_lock while invoking
> > the calls to virtio_ring.c:virtqueue_add_buf() and friends.
> >
> > This bug was originally introduced in v3.5-rc7 code with:
> >
> > commit 2bd37f0fde99cbf8b78fb55f1128e8c3a63cf1da
> > Author: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> > Date: Wed Jun 13 16:56:34 2012 +0200
> >
> > [SCSI] virtio-scsi: split scatterlist per target
> >
> > Go ahead and make sure that vq->vq_lock is relinquished w/ spin_unlock
> > first, then release tgt->tgt_lock w/ spin_unlock_irqrestore.
>
> That's done on purpose. After you do virtqueue_add_buf, you don't need
> the sg list anymore, nor the lock that protects it. The cover letter is
> at https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/6/13/295 and had this text:
>
> This series reorganizes the locking in virtio-scsi, introducing
> separate scatterlists for each target and "pipelining" the locks so
> that one command can be queued while the other is prepared. This
> improves performance when there are multiple in-flight operations.
>
> In fact, the patch _introduces_ wrong locking because
> virtqueue_kick_prepare needs the vq_lock.
>
> Perhaps what you want is separate local_irq_save/local_irq_restore?
>

Ahh, that makes more sense now.

Just noticed this while reviewing code that using one spinlock flag's to
release the other looks suspicious, minus the ordering bit..

Using local_irq_* would probably be cleaner than swapping flags between
different locks, and a short comment here would be helpful to explain
the locking order context.

Anyways, no big deal. Thanks for the explanation.

--nab





\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-11-09 21:21    [W:0.048 / U:2.132 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site