From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Yufen Yu <yuyufen@huawei.com>,
axboe@kernel.dk, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, jack@suse.cz, bvanassche@acm.org,
tytso@mit.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] bdi: protect device lifetime with RCU
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2020 18:22:21 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200304172221.GA1864270@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200304170543.GJ189690@mtj.thefacebook.com>
On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 12:05:43PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> It might be better to put this patch at the end rather than in the
> middle so that when this patch is applied things are actually fixed.
>
> > +struct bdi_rcu_device {
> > + struct device dev;
> > + struct rcu_head rcu_head;
> > +};
>
> (cc'ing Greg)
>
> Greg, block layer switches association between backing_device_info and
> its struct device and needs to protect it with RCU. Yufen did so by
> introducing a wrapping struct around struct device like above. Do you
> think it'd make sense to just embed rcu_head into struct device and
> let put_device() to RCU release by default?
Ugh, I was dreading the fact that this day might sometime come...
In theory, the reference counting for struct device shouldn't need to
use rcu at all, right? what is driving the need to use rcu for
backing_device_info? Are these being destroyed/used so often that rcu
really is the best solution and the existing reference counting doesn't
work properly?
Some context is needed here.
thanks,
greg k-h
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-04 17:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-26 11:18 [PATCH v2 0/7] bdi: fix use-after-free for bdi device Yufen Yu
2020-02-26 11:18 ` [PATCH v2 1/7] blk-wbt: use bdi_dev_name() to get device name Yufen Yu
2020-02-26 11:18 ` [PATCH v2 2/7] fs/ceph: " Yufen Yu
2020-02-26 11:18 ` [PATCH v2 3/7] bdi: protect device lifetime with RCU Yufen Yu
2020-03-04 17:05 ` Tejun Heo
2020-03-04 17:22 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman [this message]
2020-03-04 17:23 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-03-04 18:50 ` Tejun Heo
2020-03-04 19:10 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2020-03-04 19:15 ` Tejun Heo
2020-03-04 20:05 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-03-05 1:22 ` Tejun Heo
2020-03-06 16:25 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-03-07 9:13 ` Yufen Yu
2020-02-26 11:18 ` [PATCH v2 4/7] bdi: create a new function bdi_get_dev_name() Yufen Yu
2020-02-26 11:18 ` [PATCH v2 5/7] bfq: fix potential kernel crash when print dev err info Yufen Yu
2020-02-26 11:18 ` [PATCH v2 6/7] memcg: fix crash in wb_workfn when bdi unregister Yufen Yu
2020-02-26 11:18 ` [PATCH v2 7/7] blk-wbt: replace bdi_dev_name() with bdi_get_dev_name() Yufen Yu
2020-03-04 17:29 ` [PATCH v2 0/7] bdi: fix use-after-free for bdi device Greg KH
2020-03-04 18:57 ` Tejun Heo
2020-03-04 20:07 ` Greg KH
2020-03-04 19:02 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200304172221.GA1864270@kroah.com \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=yuyufen@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.