[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 11:45:05 -0500
From: Bruce Fields <bfields@...ldses.org>
To: David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>
Cc: Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com>, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [RFC][PATCH] nfsd: add +1 to reference
counting scheme for struct nfsd4_session
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 06:46:19AM -0500, David Windsor wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 5:54 AM, Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 01:42:53AM -0500, David Windsor wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >>> Signed-off-by: David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c | 6 +++---
> >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> >>> index a0dee8a..b0f3010 100644
> >>> --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> >>> +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> >>> @@ -196,7 +196,7 @@ static void nfsd4_put_session_locked(struct
> >>> nfsd4_session *ses)
> >>>
> >>> lockdep_assert_held(&nn->client_lock);
> >>>
> >>> - if (atomic_dec_and_test(&ses->se_ref) && is_session_dead(ses))
> >>> + if (!atomic_add_unless(&ses->se_ref, -1, 1) &&
> >>> is_session_des(ses))
> >>
> >>
> >> This should read:
> >> if (!atomic_add_unless(&ses->se_ref, -1, 1) && is_session_dead(ses))
> >>
> >>> free_session(ses);
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> > I'm not sure if I have this correctly; But both before and after the patch
> > free_session gets called when se_ref count was 1, shouldn't this have
> > changed with the +1 scheme?
> >
> > Also, since the !atomic_add_unless doesn't actually decrement when at 1,
> > doesn't this leave the se_ref as 1 when it's destroyed? The function seems
> > to always be locked, so perhaps this doesn't matter, but still seems a bit
> > risky.
> >
>
> Yes; I forgot the additional call to atomic_dec_and_test() before
> free_session(). Thanks!
>
> I'll resubmit this after seeing how the rest of this discussion goes.
> We may end up abandoning this refcounting case.
I could live with it.
My knee jerk reaction is like Jeff's--it just seems more natural to me
for reference count 0 to mean "not in use, OK to free" in cases like
this--but maybe I just need to get used to the idea.
It'd be interesting to see what the final result looks like after
conversion to refcount_t.
--b.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
