Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1432485

Re: [PATCH 1/2] ipc/sem.c: Fix complex_count vs. simple op race

From Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [PATCH 1/2] ipc/sem.c: Fix complex_count vs. simple op race
Date 2016-06-28 07:30 +0200
Message-ID <rOTKV-2x9-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <rKbyN-6Lx-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <rLuJ3-kK-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <rMhTr-6TQ-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <rNiu6-68M-31@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Manfred Spraul wrote:

>What I'm not sure yet is if smp_load_acquire() is sufficient:
>
>Thread A:
>>       if (!READ_ONCE(sma->complex_mode)) {
>The code is test_and_test, no barrier requirements for first test

Yeah, it would just make us take the big lock unnecessarily, nothing fatal
and I agree its probably worth the optimization. It still might be worth
commenting.

>>                /*
>>                 * It appears that no complex operation is around.
>>                 * Acquire the per-semaphore lock.
>>                 */
>>                spin_lock(&sem->lock);
>>
>>                if (!smp_load_acquire(&sma->complex_mode)) {
>>                        /* fast path successful! */
>>                        return sops->sem_num;
>>                }
>>                spin_unlock(&sem->lock);
>>        }
>
>Thread B:
>>       WRITE_ONCE(sma->complex_mode, true);
>>
>>        /* We need a full barrier:
>>         * The write to complex_mode must be visible
>>         * before we read the first sem->lock spinlock state.
>>         */
>>        smp_mb();
>>
>>        for (i = 0; i < sma->sem_nsems; i++) {
>>                sem = sma->sem_base + i;
>>                spin_unlock_wait(&sem->lock);
>>        }
>
>If thread A is allowed to issue read_spinlock;read complex_mode;write 
>spinlock, then thread B would not notice that thread A is in the 
>critical section

Are you referring to the sem->lock word not being visibly locked before we
read complex_mode (for the second time)? This issue was fixed in 2c610022711
(locking/qspinlock: Fix spin_unlock_wait() some more). So smp_load_acquire
should be enough afaict, or are you referring to something else?

Thanks,
Davidlohr

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Re: [PATCH 1/2] ipc/sem.c: Fix complex_count vs. simple op race Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> - 2016-06-23 21:30 +0200
  Re: [PATCH 1/2] ipc/sem.c: Fix complex_count vs. simple op race Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2016-06-28 07:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 1/2] ipc/sem.c: Fix complex_count vs. simple op race Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> - 2016-06-30 21:50 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 1/2] ipc/sem.c: Fix complex_count vs. simple op race Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2016-07-01 19:00 +0200

csiph-web