Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH 1/2] net/iucv: Improve unlocking in iucv_enable()

From: Alexandra Winter
Date: Tue Jan 02 2024 - 04:53:44 EST




On 02.01.24 09:27, Suman Ghosh wrote:
>>> [Suman] This looks confusing. What is the issue with retaining the
>> original change?
>>
>> I propose to reduce the number of cpus_read_unlock() calls (in the
>> source code).
>>
>> Regards,
>> Markus
> [Suman] Then I think we should do something like this. Changing the code flow back-and-forth using "goto" does not seem correct.

I share Suman's concern that jumping backwards goto is confusing.
But I think the Coccinelle finding of freeing a null-pointer should be addressed (see patch 2/2)
Thank you Markus for reporting it.

The allocation does require holding the cpus_read_lock.
For some reason Markus wants to reduce the number of cpus_read_unlock() calls (why?),
so what about something like this for both issues:

diff --git a/net/iucv/iucv.c b/net/iucv/iucv.c
index 0ed6e34d6edd..1030403b826b 100644
--- a/net/iucv/iucv.c
+++ b/net/iucv/iucv.c
@@ -542,24 +542,22 @@ static int iucv_enable(void)
size_t alloc_size;
int cpu, rc;

- cpus_read_lock();
- rc = -ENOMEM;
alloc_size = iucv_max_pathid * sizeof(struct iucv_path);
iucv_path_table = kzalloc(alloc_size, GFP_KERNEL);
if (!iucv_path_table)
- goto out;
+ return -ENOMEM;
/* Declare per cpu buffers. */
- rc = -EIO;
+ cpus_read_lock();
for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
smp_call_function_single(cpu, iucv_declare_cpu, NULL, 1);
- if (cpumask_empty(&iucv_buffer_cpumask))
+ if (cpumask_empty(&iucv_buffer_cpumask)) {
/* No cpu could declare an iucv buffer. */
- goto out;
- cpus_read_unlock();
- return 0;
-out:
- kfree(iucv_path_table);
- iucv_path_table = NULL;
+ kfree(iucv_path_table);
+ iucv_path_table = NULL;
+ rc = -EIO;
+ } else {
+ rc = 0;
+ }
cpus_read_unlock();
return rc;
}