Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 4 Mar 2022 08:50:39 +0100 | From | Stefano Garzarella <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/1] vhost: Provide a kernel warning if mutex is held whilst clean-up in progress |
| |
On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 04:01:06PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 09:14:36PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 03:19:29PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: >> > All workers/users should be halted before any clean-up should take place. >> > >> > Suggested-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> >> > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> >> > --- >> > drivers/vhost/vhost.c | 3 +++ >> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >> > >> > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c >> > index bbaff6a5e21b8..d935d2506963f 100644 >> > --- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c >> > +++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c >> > @@ -693,6 +693,9 @@ void vhost_dev_cleanup(struct vhost_dev *dev) >> > int i; >> > >> > for (i = 0; i < dev->nvqs; ++i) { >> > + /* Ideally all workers should be stopped prior to clean-up */ >> > + WARN_ON(mutex_is_locked(&dev->vqs[i]->mutex)); >> > + >> > mutex_lock(&dev->vqs[i]->mutex); >> >> I know nothing about vhost, but this construction and patch looks >> strange to me. >> >> If all workers were stopped, you won't need mutex_lock(). The mutex_lock >> here suggests to me that workers can still run here. >> >> Thanks > > >"Ideally" here is misleading, we need a bigger detailed comment >along the lines of: > >/* > * By design, no workers can run here. But if there's a bug and the > * driver did not flush all work properly then they might, and we > * encountered such bugs in the past. With no proper flush guest won't > * work correctly but avoiding host memory corruption in this case > * sounds like a good idea. > */
Can we use vhost_vq_get_backend() to check this situation?
IIUC all the vhost devices clear the backend to stop the workers. This is not racy (if we do after the mutex_lock) and should cover all cases.
Thanks, Stefano
| |