On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 04:36:35PM -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:19 PM, Eli Cohen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I considered this but that means that you serialize attach/detach
> > operations at ib core. Using a spinlock to protect the list allows
> > more concurrency. After all, we hit this bug since concurrency of such
> > operations occur in real life applications.
> 
> Looking closer at it, I don't see how we can avoid serializing multicast
> operations.
> 
> At least, I don't see how your proposed patch can work for all the crazy
> things userspace might do.
> 
> For example suppose two threads join the same QP to the same MCG at
> the same time.  In that case it might happen that both threads check the
> list and don't find the group there, since you drop the lock before the
> actual low-level verbs attach (and you don't and can't hold the lock across
> that sleeping call).
> 
> In that case both calls to attach will succeed (underlying verb is
> idempotent) and the membership info will be added to the list twice.
> 
> Then all sorts of problems ensue, eg a detach will succeed but only
> remove one list entry, and so a subsequent re-attach will silently do
> nothing.
> 
> Also I'm sure racing attach/detach can get into trouble too, eg
> detach succeeds but list entry ends up still on the list.
> 
> I don't see any obvious way to close all these holes except to
> make sure that adding/removing a list entry is done atomically
> along with the actual attach/detach operation -- ie hold some
> sort of sleepable lock (like an rwsem) across checking the list,
> doing the attach/detach and doing the list add/remove.
> 

I see...
I think there is not much point in introducing a new semaphore. We can
simply use the existing rw_semaphore. This requires defining
idr_write_qp and put_qp_write. I will prepare a patch and run some
testing.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to