From 24f91062f571ad2dd2ac22db3b7d456a2c8bd2cb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001

From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>

Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:02:23 +0100

Subject: [PATCH 112/116] virtiofsd: Convert lo_destroy to take the lo->mutex

 lock itself

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

RH-Author: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilbert@redhat.com>

Message-id: <20200127190227.40942-109-dgilbert@redhat.com>

Patchwork-id: 93563

O-Subject: [RHEL-AV-8.2 qemu-kvm PATCH 108/112] virtiofsd: Convert lo_destroy to take the lo->mutex lock itself

Bugzilla: 1694164

RH-Acked-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>

RH-Acked-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>

RH-Acked-by: Sergio Lopez Pascual <slp@redhat.com>

From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>

lo_destroy was relying on some implicit knowledge of the locking;

we can avoid this if we create an unref_inode that doesn't take

the lock and then grab it for the whole of the lo_destroy.

Suggested-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>

Signed-off-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilbert@redhat.com>

Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>

Signed-off-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilbert@redhat.com>

(cherry picked from commit fe4c15798a48143dd6b1f58d2d3cad12206ce211)

Signed-off-by: Miroslav Rezanina <mrezanin@redhat.com>

---

 tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++--------------

 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c b/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c

index eb001b9..fc15d61 100644

--- a/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c

+++ b/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c

@@ -1344,14 +1344,13 @@ static void lo_unlink(fuse_req_t req, fuse_ino_t parent, const char *name)

     lo_inode_put(lo, &inode;;

 }

-static void unref_inode_lolocked(struct lo_data *lo, struct lo_inode *inode,

-                                 uint64_t n)

+/* To be called with lo->mutex held */

+static void unref_inode(struct lo_data *lo, struct lo_inode *inode, uint64_t n)

 {

     if (!inode) {

         return;

     }

-    pthread_mutex_lock(&lo->mutex);

     assert(inode->nlookup >= n);

     inode->nlookup -= n;

     if (!inode->nlookup) {

@@ -1362,15 +1361,24 @@ static void unref_inode_lolocked(struct lo_data *lo, struct lo_inode *inode,

         }

         g_hash_table_destroy(inode->posix_locks);

         pthread_mutex_destroy(&inode->plock_mutex);

-        pthread_mutex_unlock(&lo->mutex);

         /* Drop our refcount from lo_do_lookup() */

         lo_inode_put(lo, &inode;;

-    } else {

-        pthread_mutex_unlock(&lo->mutex);

     }

 }

+static void unref_inode_lolocked(struct lo_data *lo, struct lo_inode *inode,

+                                 uint64_t n)

+{

+    if (!inode) {

+        return;

+    }

+

+    pthread_mutex_lock(&lo->mutex);

+    unref_inode(lo, inode, n);

+    pthread_mutex_unlock(&lo->mutex);

+}

+

 static void lo_forget_one(fuse_req_t req, fuse_ino_t ino, uint64_t nlookup)

 {

     struct lo_data *lo = lo_data(req);

@@ -2458,13 +2466,7 @@ static void lo_destroy(void *userdata)

 {

     struct lo_data *lo = (struct lo_data *)userdata;

-    /*

-     * Normally lo->mutex must be taken when traversing lo->inodes but

-     * lo_destroy() is a serialized request so no races are possible here.

-     *

-     * In addition, we cannot acquire lo->mutex since unref_inode() takes it

-     * too and this would result in a recursive lock.

-     */

+    pthread_mutex_lock(&lo->mutex);

     while (true) {

         GHashTableIter iter;

         gpointer key, value;

@@ -2475,8 +2477,9 @@ static void lo_destroy(void *userdata)

         }

         struct lo_inode *inode = value;

-        unref_inode_lolocked(lo, inode, inode->nlookup);

+        unref_inode(lo, inode, inode->nlookup);

     }

+    pthread_mutex_unlock(&lo->mutex);

 }

 static struct fuse_lowlevel_ops lo_oper = {

-- 

1.8.3.1