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


Groups > linux.kernel > #1482137

Re: [PATCH 1/5] ipc/sem: do not call wake_sem_queue_do() prematurely

From Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [PATCH 1/5] ipc/sem: do not call wake_sem_queue_do() prematurely
Date 2016-09-13 06:20 +0200
Message-ID <sgNmq-4WR-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <sgy41-2Jz-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <sgy41-2Jz-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


Hi Davidlohr,

On 09/12/2016 01:53 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> ... as this call should obviously be paired with its _prepare()
> counterpart. At least whenever possible, as there is no harm in
> calling it bogusly as we do now in a few places.
I would define the interface differently:
WAKE_Q creates an initialized wake queue. There is no need to track if 
any tasks were added to the wake queue, it is safe to call wake_up_q().
So especially for error paths, there is no need to optimize out calls to 
wake_up_q()
>   Immediate error
> semop(2) paths that are far from ever having the task block can
> be simplified and avoid a few unnecessary loads on their way out
> of the call as it is not deeply nested.
> Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
> ---
>   ipc/sem.c | 19 ++++++++++++-------
>   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/ipc/sem.c b/ipc/sem.c
> index 5e318c5f749d..a4e8bb2fae38 100644
> --- a/ipc/sem.c
> +++ b/ipc/sem.c
> @@ -1887,16 +1887,22 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(semtimedop, int, semid, struct sembuf __user *, tsops,
>   	}
>   
>   	error = -EFBIG;
> -	if (max >= sma->sem_nsems)
> -		goto out_rcu_wakeup;
> +	if (max >= sma->sem_nsems) {
> +		rcu_read_unlock();
> +		goto out_free;
> +	}
>   
>   	error = -EACCES;
> -	if (ipcperms(ns, &sma->sem_perm, alter ? S_IWUGO : S_IRUGO))
> -		goto out_rcu_wakeup;
> +	if (ipcperms(ns, &sma->sem_perm, alter ? S_IWUGO : S_IRUGO)) {
> +		rcu_read_unlock();
> +		goto out_free;
> +	}
>   
Is this really better/simpler?
You replace "if (error) goto cleanup" with "if (error) {cleanup_1(); 
goto cleanup_2()}".

 From my point of view, this just increases the risks that some cleanup 
steps are forgotten.

--
     Manfred

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


Thread

[PATCH 1/5] ipc/sem: do not call wake_sem_queue_do() prematurely Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2016-09-12 14:00 +0200
  Re: [PATCH 1/5] ipc/sem: do not call wake_sem_queue_do() prematurely Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> - 2016-09-13 06:20 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 1/5] ipc/sem: do not call wake_sem_queue_do() prematurely Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2016-09-13 10:20 +0200

csiph-web