Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 12/13] xen/pvcalls: implement release command

[Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 24 Oct 2017, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> (I just noticed that I missed this patch, sorry)

Thanks for the review!


> On 10/06/2017 08:30 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > Send PVCALLS_RELEASE to the backend and wait for a reply. Take both
> > in_mutex and out_mutex to avoid concurrent accesses. Then, free the
> > socket.
> >
> > For passive sockets, check whether we have already pre-allocated an
> > active socket for the purpose of being accepted. If so, free that as
> > well.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > CC: boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx
> > CC: jgross@xxxxxxxx
> > ---
> >  drivers/xen/pvcalls-front.c | 98 
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  drivers/xen/pvcalls-front.h |  1 +
> >  2 files changed, 99 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/xen/pvcalls-front.c b/drivers/xen/pvcalls-front.c
> > index aca2b32..9beb34d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/xen/pvcalls-front.c
> > +++ b/drivers/xen/pvcalls-front.c
> > @@ -200,6 +200,19 @@ static irqreturn_t pvcalls_front_event_handler(int 
> > irq, void *dev_id)
> >  static void pvcalls_front_free_map(struct pvcalls_bedata *bedata,
> >                                struct sock_mapping *map)
> >  {
> > +   int i;
> > +
> > +   unbind_from_irqhandler(map->active.irq, map);
> > +
> > +   spin_lock(&bedata->socket_lock);
> > +   if (!list_empty(&map->list))
> > +           list_del_init(&map->list);
> 
> As with patch 2, do you need to init this? In fact, do you need to do
> anything with the list? We are about to free the map (and so maybe bring
> 'kfree(map)" inside here, btw?)
> 
> And what does it mean if the list is not empty? Is it OK to free the map?

Yes, list_del_init should be just list_del in this case.

These two lines are only there to remove the map from socket_mappings if
the map is part of one. Normally, map->list should NOT be empty.

Yes, kfree(map) could be in pvcalls_front_free_map, I'll make the
change.


I have just noticed that we have a socketpass_mappings in struct
pvcalls_bedata that used to be used in earlier versions of this series,
but it is now unused. Today, we just use socket_mappings for both active
and passive sockets. I'll remove it and fix pvcalls_front_remove
accordingly.


> > +   spin_unlock(&bedata->socket_lock);
> > +
> > +   for (i = 0; i < (1 << PVCALLS_RING_ORDER); i++)
> > +           gnttab_end_foreign_access(map->active.ring->ref[i], 0, 0);
> > +   gnttab_end_foreign_access(map->active.ref, 0, 0);
> > +   free_page((unsigned long)map->active.ring);
> >  }
> >  
> >  static irqreturn_t pvcalls_front_conn_handler(int irq, void *sock_map)
> > @@ -968,6 +981,91 @@ unsigned int pvcalls_front_poll(struct file *file, 
> > struct socket *sock,
> >     return ret;
> >  }
> >  
> 
> 
> > +
> > +   if (map->active_socket) {
> > +           /*
> > +            * Set in_error and wake up inflight_conn_req to force
> > +            * recvmsg waiters to exit.
> > +            */
> > +           map->active.ring->in_error = -EBADF;
> > +           wake_up_interruptible(&map->active.inflight_conn_req);
> > +
> > +           /*
> > +            * Wait until there are no more waiters on the mutexes.
> > +            * We know that no new waiters can be added because sk_send_head
> > +            * is set to NULL -- we only need to wait for the existing
> > +            * waiters to return.
> > +            */
> > +           while (!mutex_trylock(&map->active.in_mutex) ||
> > +                      !mutex_trylock(&map->active.out_mutex))
> > +                   cpu_relax();
> > +
> > +           pvcalls_front_free_map(bedata, map);
> > +           kfree(map);
> > +   } else {
> > +           spin_lock(&bedata->socket_lock);
> > +           if (READ_ONCE(map->passive.inflight_req_id) !=
> > +               PVCALLS_INVALID_ID) {
> > +                   pvcalls_front_free_map(bedata,
> 
> pvcalls_front_free_map will try to grab bedata->socket_lock, which we are 
> already holding.

This is a mistake, well spotted! I'll add a boolean "locked" parameter
to pvcalls_front_free_map. If (locked), pvcalls_front_free_map won't
spin_lock.


> 
> > +                                          map->passive.accept_map);
> > +                   kfree(map->passive.accept_map);
> > +           }
> > +           list_del_init(&map->list);
> 
> Again, no init?

Yes, I'll remove


> > +           kfree(map);
> > +           spin_unlock(&bedata->socket_lock);
> > +   }
> > +   WRITE_ONCE(bedata->rsp[req_id].req_id, PVCALLS_INVALID_ID);
> >
> 

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel