On Mon, 2011-05-30 at 10:47 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Sasha Levin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > @@ -55,41 +56,53 @@ static const char *to_direction(u8 is_write)
> > bool kvm__register_mmio(u64 phys_addr, u64 phys_addr_len, void
> > (*kvm_mmio_callback_fn)(u64 addr, u8 *data, u32 len, u8 is_write))
> > {
> > struct mmio_mapping *mmio;
> > + int ret;
> >
> > mmio = malloc(sizeof(*mmio));
> > if (mmio == NULL)
> > return false;
> >
> > + br_write_lock();
> > *mmio = (struct mmio_mapping) {
> > .node = RB_INT_INIT(phys_addr, phys_addr + phys_addr_len),
> > .kvm_mmio_callback_fn = kvm_mmio_callback_fn,
> > };
>
> The initialization here does not use any global state AFAICS so it
> does not need the write lock, right?
>
> >
> > - return mmio_insert(&mmio_tree, mmio);
> > + ret = mmio_insert(&mmio_tree, mmio);
> > + br_write_unlock();
>
> Shouldnt mmio_insert() thus have the write_lock()/unlock() sequence?
Yes, the lock can be reduced to just the insert.
> > bool kvm__deregister_mmio(u64 phys_addr)
> > {
> > struct mmio_mapping *mmio;
> >
> > + br_write_lock();
> > mmio = mmio_search_single(&mmio_tree, phys_addr);
> > if (mmio == NULL)
> > return false;
>
> Here we leak the write lock!
>
> > bool kvm__emulate_mmio(struct kvm *kvm, u64 phys_addr, u8 *data, u32 len,
> > u8 is_write)
> > {
> > - struct mmio_mapping *mmio = mmio_search(&mmio_tree, phys_addr, len);
> > + struct mmio_mapping *mmio;
> > +
> > + br_read_lock();
> > + mmio = mmio_search(&mmio_tree, phys_addr, len);
> >
> > if (mmio)
> > mmio->kvm_mmio_callback_fn(phys_addr, data, len, is_write);
> > else
> > fprintf(stderr, "Warning: Ignoring MMIO %s at %016llx (length
> > %u)\n",
> > to_direction(is_write), phys_addr, len);
> > + br_read_unlock();
> >
> > return true;
> > }
>
> Yummie, scalability here we come! :-)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
--
Sasha.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
