From: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
To: "Jérémy Jean" <Jeremy.Jean@oss.cyber.gouv.fr>
Cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>,
Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>,
Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>,
v9fs@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
stable@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 9p: pin request under client lock in p9_tag_lookup
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2026 14:50:07 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <auLejxGRgVLKlLuL@codewreck.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260930201357.590469-2-Jeremy.Jean@oss.cyber.gouv.fr>
Jérémy Jean wrote on Wed, Sep 30, 2026 at 08:13:58PM +0000:
> 9P clients keep separate request tables but share one request cache.
> p9_tag_lookup() can race with the final p9_req_put() and pin a request
Ah.. Right, just checking the tag isn't enough, we also need to check
the client... I'm not sure why I had assumed the caches were not merged,
they're only not merged with different types..
So technically we could add a reference or some kind of id for the
client and check that, but given SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU is hard to grok I
guess it's much simpler to just take the lock and be done with it...
(in that case we can get rid of SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU altogether, the
lock is enough guarantee that the memory is valid until we get the ref
here)
It's far from a new bug so I'd rather not rush this just to go back to
rcu a few weeks later, give me a bit of time to check how much impact
taking the lock here adds so we can decide. There's enough leeway in the
p9_req_t struct that we can check the client for free if we care...
Meanwhile, if someone else has an opinon feel free to chip in
--
Dominique Martinet | Asmadeus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-29 5:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-30 20:13 Jérémy Jean
2026-10-29 5:50 ` Dominique Martinet [this message]
2026-10-29 10:56 ` Jérémy Jean
2026-10-29 13:30 ` Dominique Martinet
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=auLejxGRgVLKlLuL@codewreck.org \
--to=asmadeus@codewreck.org \
--cc=Jeremy.Jean@oss.cyber.gouv.fr \
--cc=ericvh@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux_oss@crudebyte.com \
--cc=lucho@ionkov.net \
--cc=stable@kernel.org \
--cc=v9fs@lists.linux.dev \
/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®