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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1203670 > unrolled thread

[PATCH] ipc/sem.c: Update/correct memory barriers

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  [PATCH] ipc/sem.c: Update/correct memory barriers Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> - 2015-08-09 20:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] ipc/sem.c: Update/correct memory barriers Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-08-10 10:20 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] ipc/sem.c: Update/correct memory barriers Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-08-12 15:40 +0200

#1203670 — [PATCH] ipc/sem.c: Update/correct memory barriers

sem_lock() did not properly pair memory barriers:

!spin_is_locked() and spin_unlock_wait() are both only control barriers.
The code needs an acquire barrier, otherwise the cpu might perform
read operations before the lock test.
As no primitive exists inside <include/spinlock.h> and since it seems
noone wants another primitive, the code creates a local primitive within
ipc/sem.c.

With regards to -stable:
The change of sem_wait_array() is a bugfix, the change to sem_lock()
is a nop (just a preprocessor redefinition to improve the readability).
The bugfix is necessary for all kernels that use sem_wait_array()
(i.e.: starting from 3.10).

Andrew: Could you include it into your tree and forward it?

Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
Reported-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
---
 ipc/sem.c | 18 ++++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/ipc/sem.c b/ipc/sem.c
index bc3d530..e581b08 100644
--- a/ipc/sem.c
+++ b/ipc/sem.c
@@ -253,6 +253,16 @@ static void sem_rcu_free(struct rcu_head *head)
 }
 
 /*
+ * spin_unlock_wait() and !spin_is_locked() are not memory barriers, they
+ * are only control barriers.
+ * The code must pair with spin_unlock(&sem->lock) or
+ * spin_unlock(&sem_perm.lock), thus just the control barrier is insufficient.
+ *
+ * smp_rmb() is sufficient, as writes cannot pass the control barrier.
+ */
+#define ipc_smp_acquire__after_spin_is_unlocked()	smp_rmb()
+
+/*
  * Wait until all currently ongoing simple ops have completed.
  * Caller must own sem_perm.lock.
  * New simple ops cannot start, because simple ops first check
@@ -275,6 +285,7 @@ static void sem_wait_array(struct sem_array *sma)
 		sem = sma->sem_base + i;
 		spin_unlock_wait(&sem->lock);
 	}
+	ipc_smp_acquire__after_spin_is_unlocked();
 }
 
 /*
@@ -327,13 +338,12 @@ static inline int sem_lock(struct sem_array *sma, struct sembuf *sops,
 		/* Then check that the global lock is free */
 		if (!spin_is_locked(&sma->sem_perm.lock)) {
 			/*
-			 * The ipc object lock check must be visible on all
-			 * cores before rechecking the complex count.  Otherwise
-			 * we can race with  another thread that does:
+			 * We need a memory barrier with acquire semantics,
+			 * otherwise we can race with another thread that does:
 			 *	complex_count++;
 			 *	spin_unlock(sem_perm.lock);
 			 */
-			smp_rmb();
+			ipc_smp_acquire__after_spin_is_unlocked();
 
 			/*
 			 * Now repeat the test of complex_count:
-- 
2.4.3

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1203886

On Sun, Aug 09, 2015 at 07:55:39PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> sem_lock() did not properly pair memory barriers:
> 
> !spin_is_locked() and spin_unlock_wait() are both only control barriers.
> The code needs an acquire barrier, otherwise the cpu might perform
> read operations before the lock test.
> As no primitive exists inside <include/spinlock.h> and since it seems
> noone wants another primitive, the code creates a local primitive within
> ipc/sem.c.
> 
> With regards to -stable:
> The change of sem_wait_array() is a bugfix, the change to sem_lock()
> is a nop (just a preprocessor redefinition to improve the readability).
> The bugfix is necessary for all kernels that use sem_wait_array()
> (i.e.: starting from 3.10).
> 
> Andrew: Could you include it into your tree and forward it?
> 
> Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
> Reported-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>

Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1206098

On 08/09, Manfred Spraul wrote:
>
>  /*
> + * spin_unlock_wait() and !spin_is_locked() are not memory barriers, they
> + * are only control barriers.
> + * The code must pair with spin_unlock(&sem->lock) or
> + * spin_unlock(&sem_perm.lock), thus just the control barrier is insufficient.
> + *
> + * smp_rmb() is sufficient, as writes cannot pass the control barrier.
> + */
> +#define ipc_smp_acquire__after_spin_is_unlocked()	smp_rmb()

Agreed.



But to remind, this can have more users. In particular, task_work_run()
which currently does mb() after spin_unlock_wait().

Can someone suggest a good "generic" name for this helper so that we can
move it into include/linux/spinlock.h?

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web