From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Fan Wu <fanwu01@zju.edu.cn>
Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, chenridong@huawei.com,
driver-core@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernfs: recheck of->released after acquiring the active reference
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2026 07:46:06 -1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aoc9XplwfHGjQym4@slm.duckdns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260820021810.163082-1-fanwu01@zju.edu.cn>
Hello,
On Thu, Aug 20, 2026 at 02:18:10AM +0000, Fan Wu wrote:
> @@ -73,12 +73,22 @@ static struct kernfs_open_node *of_on(struct kernfs_open_file *of)
> /* Get active reference to kernfs node for an open file */
> static struct kernfs_open_file *kernfs_get_active_of(struct kernfs_open_file *of)
> {
> - /* Skip if file was already released */
> - if (unlikely(of->released))
> + if (!kernfs_get_active(of->kn))
> return NULL;
>
> - if (!kernfs_get_active(of->kn))
> + /*
> + * @of->released is set under kernfs_open_file_mutex. While the
> + * active reference is held, @kn can't be drained anymore and
> + * kernfs_fop_release() can't run, so re-reading @of->released
> + * here settles whether @of was released for good.
> + */
> + mutex_lock(kernfs_open_file_mutex_ptr(of->kn));
> + if (unlikely(of->released)) {
> + mutex_unlock(kernfs_open_file_mutex_ptr(of->kn));
> + kernfs_put_active(of->kn);
> return NULL;
> + }
> + mutex_unlock(kernfs_open_file_mutex_ptr(of->kn));
"lock -> test something -> unlock" pattern is usually unnecessary. What's
the mutex achieving doing? Doesn't kernfs_get_active() already have strong
enough memory barrier? If not, it'd be better to solve it by iterlocking
kernfs_get_active() and released clearing.
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-20 17:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-20 2:18 Fan Wu
2026-08-20 17:46 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2026-08-21 5:07 ` [PATCH v2] " Fan Wu
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=aoc9XplwfHGjQym4@slm.duckdns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=chenridong@huawei.com \
--cc=driver-core@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=fanwu01@zju.edu.cn \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®