search for: loopback_list_lock

v2: - style fixes [Dave] - removed RCU sync and changed 'the_vsock_loopback' in a global static variable [Stefan] - use G2H transport when local transport is not loaded and remote cid is VMADDR_CID_LOCAL [Stefan] - rebased on net-next v1: https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/11251735/ This series introduces a new transport (vsock_loopback) to handle local communication. This

...@@ -86,33 +86,6 @@ static u32 virtio_transport_get_local_cid(void) return ret; } -static void virtio_transport_loopback_work(struct work_struct *work) -{ - struct virtio_vsock *vsock = - container_of(work, struct virtio_vsock, loopback_work); - LIST_HEAD(pkts); - - spin_lock_bh(&vsock->loopback_list_lock); - list_splice_init(&vsock->loopback_list, &pkts); - spin_unlock_bh(&vsock->loopback_list_lock); - - mutex_lock(&vsock->rx_lock); - - if (!vsock->rx_run) - goto out; - - while (!list_empty(&pkts)) { - struct virtio_vsock_pkt *pkt; - - pkt = list_first_entry(&...

...{ * vqs[VSOCK_VQ_EVENT] must be accessed with event_lock held. */ struct mutex event_lock; + bool event_run; struct virtio_vsock_event event_list[8]; u32 guest_cid; @@ -94,6 +97,10 @@ static void virtio_transport_loopback_work(struct work_struct *work) spin_unlock_bh(&vsock->loopback_list_lock); mutex_lock(&vsock->rx_lock); + + if (!vsock->rx_run) + goto out; + while (!list_empty(&pkts)) { struct virtio_vsock_pkt *pkt; @@ -102,6 +109,7 @@ static void virtio_transport_loopback_work(struct work_struct *work) virtio_transport_recv_pkt(pkt); } +out: mutex_u...

...{ * vqs[VSOCK_VQ_EVENT] must be accessed with event_lock held. */ struct mutex event_lock; + bool event_run; struct virtio_vsock_event event_list[8]; u32 guest_cid; @@ -94,6 +97,10 @@ static void virtio_transport_loopback_work(struct work_struct *work) spin_unlock_bh(&vsock->loopback_list_lock); mutex_lock(&vsock->rx_lock); + + if (!vsock->rx_run) + goto out; + while (!list_empty(&pkts)) { struct virtio_vsock_pkt *pkt; @@ -102,6 +109,7 @@ static void virtio_transport_loopback_work(struct work_struct *work) virtio_transport_recv_pkt(pkt); } +out: mutex_u...

During the review of "[PATCH] vsock/virtio: Initialize core virtio vsock before registering the driver", Stefan pointed out some possible issues in the .probe() and .remove() callbacks of the virtio-vsock driver. This series tries to solve these issues: - Patch 1 adds RCU critical sections to avoid use-after-free of 'the_virtio_vsock' pointer. - Patch 2 stops workers before to

During the review of "[PATCH] vsock/virtio: Initialize core virtio vsock before registering the driver", Stefan pointed out some possible issues in the .probe() and .remove() callbacks of the virtio-vsock driver. This series tries to solve these issues: - Patch 1 adds RCU critical sections to avoid use-after-free of 'the_virtio_vsock' pointer. - Patch 2 stops workers before to

During the review of "[PATCH] vsock/virtio: Initialize core virtio vsock before registering the driver", Stefan pointed out some possible issues in the .probe() and .remove() callbacks of the virtio-vsock driver. This series tries to solve these issues: - Patch 1 adds RCU critical sections to avoid use-after-free of 'the_virtio_vsock' pointer. - Patch 2 stops workers before to

During the review of "[PATCH] vsock/virtio: Initialize core virtio vsock before registering the driver", Stefan pointed out some possible issues in the .probe() and .remove() callbacks of the virtio-vsock driver. This series tries to solve these issues: - Patch 1 postpones the 'the_virtio_vsock' assignment at the end of the .probe() to avoid that some sockets queue works when

During the review of "[PATCH] vsock/virtio: Initialize core virtio vsock before registering the driver", Stefan pointed out some possible issues in the .probe() and .remove() callbacks of the virtio-vsock driver. This series tries to solve these issues: - Patch 1 postpones the 'the_virtio_vsock' assignment at the end of the .probe() to avoid that some sockets queue works when

...ck(&the_virtio_vsock_mutex); + the_virtio_vsock = NULL; + flush_work(&vsock->loopback_work); flush_work(&vsock->rx_work); flush_work(&vsock->tx_work); @@ -667,13 +677,10 @@ static void virtio_vsock_remove(struct virtio_device *vdev) } spin_unlock_bh(&vsock->loopback_list_lock); - mutex_lock(&the_virtio_vsock_mutex); - the_virtio_vsock = NULL; - mutex_unlock(&the_virtio_vsock_mutex); - vdev->config->del_vqs(vdev); kfree(vsock); + mutex_unlock(&the_virtio_vsock_mutex); } static struct virtio_device_id id_table[] = { -- 2.20.1

...ssign_pointer(the_virtio_vsock, NULL); + synchronize_rcu(); + flush_work(&vsock->loopback_work); flush_work(&vsock->rx_work); flush_work(&vsock->tx_work); @@ -666,12 +689,10 @@ static void virtio_vsock_remove(struct virtio_device *vdev) } spin_unlock_bh(&vsock->loopback_list_lock); - mutex_lock(&the_virtio_vsock_mutex); - the_virtio_vsock = NULL; - mutex_unlock(&the_virtio_vsock_mutex); - vdev->config->del_vqs(vdev); + mutex_unlock(&the_virtio_vsock_mutex); + kfree(vsock); } -- 2.20.1

...ssign_pointer(the_virtio_vsock, NULL); + synchronize_rcu(); + flush_work(&vsock->loopback_work); flush_work(&vsock->rx_work); flush_work(&vsock->tx_work); @@ -666,12 +690,10 @@ static void virtio_vsock_remove(struct virtio_device *vdev) } spin_unlock_bh(&vsock->loopback_list_lock); - mutex_lock(&the_virtio_vsock_mutex); - the_virtio_vsock = NULL; - mutex_unlock(&the_virtio_vsock_mutex); - vdev->config->del_vqs(vdev); + mutex_unlock(&the_virtio_vsock_mutex); + kfree(vsock); } -- 2.20.1

...synchronize_rcu(); > + > flush_work(&vsock->loopback_work); > flush_work(&vsock->rx_work); > flush_work(&vsock->tx_work); > @@ -666,12 +689,10 @@ static void virtio_vsock_remove(struct virtio_device *vdev) > } > spin_unlock_bh(&vsock->loopback_list_lock); > > - mutex_lock(&the_virtio_vsock_mutex); > - the_virtio_vsock = NULL; > - mutex_unlock(&the_virtio_vsock_mutex); > - > vdev->config->del_vqs(vdev); > > + mutex_unlock(&the_virtio_vsock_mutex); > + > kfree(vsock); > } >

...synchronize_rcu(); > + > flush_work(&vsock->loopback_work); > flush_work(&vsock->rx_work); > flush_work(&vsock->tx_work); > @@ -666,12 +689,10 @@ static void virtio_vsock_remove(struct virtio_device *vdev) > } > spin_unlock_bh(&vsock->loopback_list_lock); > > - mutex_lock(&the_virtio_vsock_mutex); > - the_virtio_vsock = NULL; > - mutex_unlock(&the_virtio_vsock_mutex); > - > vdev->config->del_vqs(vdev); > > + mutex_unlock(&the_virtio_vsock_mutex); > + > kfree(vsock); > } >

Most of the patches are reviewed by Dexuan, Stefan, and Jorgen. The following patches need reviews: - [11/15] vsock: add multi-transports support - [12/15] vsock/vmci: register vmci_transport only when VMCI guest/host are active - [15/15] vhost/vsock: refuse CID assigned to the guest->host transport RFC: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/1168442/ v1:

Hi all, this series adds the multi-transports support to vsock, following this proposal: https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg575792.html With the multi-transports support, we can use vsock with nested VMs (using also different hypervisors) loading both guest->host and host->guest transports at the same time. Before this series, vmci-transport supported this behavior but only using

Hi all, this series adds the multi-transports support to vsock, following this proposal: https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg575792.html With the multi-transports support, we can use vsock with nested VMs (using also different hypervisors) loading both guest->host and host->guest transports at the same time. Before this series, vmci-transport supported this behavior but only using

This series adds the multi-transports support to vsock, following this proposal: https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg575792.html With the multi-transports support, we can use VSOCK with nested VMs (using also different hypervisors) loading both guest->host and host->guest transports at the same time. Before this series, vmci-transport supported this behavior but only using VMware

This series adds the multi-transports support to vsock, following this proposal: https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg575792.html With the multi-transports support, we can use VSOCK with nested VMs (using also different hypervisors) loading both guest->host and host->guest transports at the same time. Before this series, vmci-transport supported this behavior but only using VMware