[PATCH 1/2] cpukit/jffs2: Set extracted nodes off-chain

[Sebastian Huber]

On 21.09.23 17:06, Kinsey Moore wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 10:01 AM Sebastian Huber 
> <sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de 
> <mailto:sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de>> wrote:
> 
>     On 21.09.23 16:52, Kinsey Moore wrote:
>      > On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 9:47 AM Sebastian Huber
>      > <sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
>     <mailto:sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de>
>      > <mailto:sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
>     <mailto:sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de>>> wrote:
>      >
>      >     On 20.09.23 20:35, Kinsey Moore wrote:
>      >     [...]
>      >      > @@ -1306,8 +1307,22 @@ static void process_delayed_work(void)
>      >      >       while (!rtems_chain_is_tail(&process_work_chain,
>     node)) {
>      >      >               work = (struct delayed_work*) node;
>      >      >               rtems_chain_node* next_node =
>     rtems_chain_next(node);
>      >      > +
>      >      > +             /*
>      >      > +              * Don't leave extracted node exposed to other
>      >     operations
>      >      > +              * under RTEMS_DEBUG
>      >      > +              */
>      >      > +#ifdef RTEMS_DEBUG
>      >      > +             mutex_lock(&delayed_work_mutex);
>      >      > +#endif
>      >      >               rtems_chain_extract(node);
>      >      > +#ifdef RTEMS_DEBUG
>      >      > +             node->next = node;
>      >      > +             mutex_unlock(&delayed_work_mutex);
>      >      > +#endif
>      >      > +
>      >      >               work->callback(&work->work);
>      >      > +             rtems_chain_set_off_chain(node);
>      >      >               node = next_node;
>      >      >       }
>      >      >   }
>      >
>      >     This change makes no sense to me. The code should work
>     regardless if
>      >     RTEMS_DEBUG is defined or not.
>      >
>      >
>      > RTEMS_DEBUG introduces a behavioral change in
>     rtems_chain_extract() such
>      > that extracted nodes are automatically set off-chain. When
>     RTEMS_DEBUG
>      > is not set, node->next is left untouched. This has to be managed
>     because
>      > this code needs the node to remain on-chain so that it is not
>     re-queued
>      > during the operation.
> 
>     Yes, but while a node is on a chain you must not call
>     rtems_chain_set_off_chain(). If you want to use the off-chain state,
>     then you have to use this:
> 
>     rtems_chain_extract(node);
>     rtems_chain_set_off_chain(node);
> 
>     or
> 
>     rtems_chain_extract_unprotected(node);
>     rtems_chain_set_off_chain(node);
> 
>     The automatic set off-chain in RTEMS_DEBUG is just to ensure that basic
>     chain operations are used in the right state.
> 
> 
> Yes, there is no behavior here where rtems_chain_set_off_chain() is 
> being called on a node that is still in a chain. This section of code is 
> entirely managing the side-effect of RTEMS_DEBUG that sets the node in 
> the off-chain state post-extraction. In this case, that side-effect is 
> undesirable and so a lock is in place to prevent that temporary 
> side-effect from leaking to other parts of the system since all other 
> off-chain checks are behind the same lock.

Ok, so you want to delay the set-off state visibility in case 
RTEMS_DEBUG is defined. This is the first place in the code base which 
needs this behaviour.

We basically don't use internal locking in JFFS2 in RTEMS. Why can't you 
use the global file system lock of the JFFS2 instance to work carry out 
this delayed work?

-- 
embedded brains GmbH
Herr Sebastian HUBER
Dornierstr. 4
82178 Puchheim
Germany
email: sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
phone: +49-89-18 94 741 - 16
fax:   +49-89-18 94 741 - 08

Registergericht: Amtsgericht München
Registernummer: HRB 157899
Vertretungsberechtigte Geschäftsführer: Peter Rasmussen, Thomas Dörfler
Unsere Datenschutzerklärung finden Sie hier:
https://embedded-brains.de/datenschutzerklaerung/