Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1432485
| 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 |
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 | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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