On 17.05.21 17:33, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 17.05.2021 17:22, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 17.05.21 17:12, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 17.05.2021 16:23, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>> On 17.05.21 16:11, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 13.05.2021 12:02, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>> @@ -1574,10 +1580,16 @@ static irqreturn_t blkif_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id)
>>>>>>     	spin_lock_irqsave(&rinfo->ring_lock, flags);
>>>>>>      again:
>>>>>>     	rp = rinfo->ring.sring->rsp_prod;
>>>>>> +	if (RING_RESPONSE_PROD_OVERFLOW(&rinfo->ring, rp)) {
>>>>>> +		pr_alert("%s: illegal number of responses %u\n",
>>>>>> +			 info->gd->disk_name, rp - rinfo->ring.rsp_cons);
>>>>>> +		goto err;
>>>>>> +	}
>>>>>>     	rmb(); /* Ensure we see queued responses up to 'rp'. */
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you want to insert after the barrier.
>>>>
>>>> Why? The relevant variable which is checked is "rp". The result of the
>>>> check is in no way depending on the responses themselves. And any change
>>>> of rsp_cons is protected by ring_lock, so there is no possibility of
>>>> reading an old value here.
>>>
>>> But this is a standard double read situation: You might check a value
>>> and then (via a separate read) use a different one past the barrier.
>>
>> Yes and no.
>>
>> rsp_cons should never be written by the other side, and additionally
>> it would be read multiple times anyway.
> 
> But I'm talking about rsp_prod, as that's what rp gets loaded from.

Oh, now I get your problem.

But shouldn't that better be solved by using READ_ONCE() for reading rp
instead?


Juergen