Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 11:23:47 +0200 > > From: Martin Pieuchot <m...@openbsd.org> > > > > As found by tb@ and visa@, `f_mtx' need to block interrupts as long as > > it can be taken w/ and w/o the KERNEL_LOCK(). Otherwise a deadlock is > > possible if an interrupt tries to grab the KERNEL_LOCK(). > > > > I'm not switching to a rwlock because code paths are short, I don't > > want to introduce new sleeping points and in the long run we should > > be using SRPs or atomic operations for reference counts. > > > > ok? > > I suppose IPL_VM is the most sensible default for mutexes that need to > block all interrupts that might need the kernel lock. > > ok kettenis@
Hello, Wouldn't IPL_MPFLOOR be more appropriate? After all mutexes are already raising the ipl level to IPL_MPFLOOR (expect for IPL_NONE and above). Mathieu-. > > > Index: kern/kern_descrip.c > > =================================================================== > > RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/kern/kern_descrip.c,v > > retrieving revision 1.158 > > diff -u -p -r1.158 kern_descrip.c > > --- kern/kern_descrip.c 8 May 2018 09:03:58 -0000 1.158 > > +++ kern/kern_descrip.c 28 May 2018 09:23:31 -0000 > > @@ -957,7 +957,11 @@ restart: > > */ > > numfiles++; > > fp = pool_get(&file_pool, PR_WAITOK|PR_ZERO); > > - mtx_init(&fp->f_mtx, IPL_NONE); > > + /* > > + * We need to block interrupts as long as `f_mtx' is being taken > > + * with and without the KERNEL_LOCK(). > > + */ > > + mtx_init(&fp->f_mtx, IPL_VM); > > fp->f_iflags = FIF_LARVAL; > > if ((fq = p->p_fd->fd_ofiles[0]) != NULL) { > > LIST_INSERT_AFTER(fq, fp, f_list); > > > > >