From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri May 16 09:46:05 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F262B37B401
	for <current@FreeBSD.org>; Fri, 16 May 2003 09:46:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gw.catspoiler.org (217-ip-163.nccn.net [209.79.217.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F13C43FAF
	for <current@FreeBSD.org>; Fri, 16 May 2003 09:46:04 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from FreeBSD.org (mousie.catspoiler.org [192.168.101.2])
	by gw.catspoiler.org (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4GGjuM7058624;
	Fri, 16 May 2003 09:46:00 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Message-Id: <200305161646.h4GGjuM7058624@gw.catspoiler.org>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 09:45:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org>
To: bde@zeta.org.au
In-Reply-To: <20030516233858.U12541@gamplex.bde.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii
cc: current@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: CFR: fifo_open()/fifo_close() patch
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 16:46:05 -0000

On 16 May, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2003, Don Lewis wrote:
> 
>> There are a few problems in the fifo_open() and fifo_close()
>> implementations.
>> ...
>> This patch makes the following changes:
>>
>> 	Create fifo_inactive() and free the fifo data structures there
>> 	instead of in fifo_close() to eliminate the need for fifo_open()
>> 	call fifo_close() in some of the failure cases.  This also
>> 	eliminates the need for the vrefcnt() call in fifo_close().
>>
>> 	Protect fip->fi_{readers,writers} with the vnode interlock in both
>> 	fifo_open() and fifo_close().
>>
>> 	Convert from tsleep() to msleep() using the vnode interlock to
>> 	eliminate the race condition.
> 
> Why not just lock the vnode in fifo_close()?  RELENG[2-4] seems to have
> the same bug.  I cannot be fixed there using the vnode interlock.

That is probably the proper fix for RELENG4 where finer-grained locking
isn't needed because of Giant.  I'd still probably move the resource
deallocation to fifo_inactive().