linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/7] ipc,sem: fine grained locking for semtimedop

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:01:05 -0700
From:	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
Cc:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, davidlohr.bueso@...com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	hhuang@...hat.com, jason.low2@...com, lwoodman@...hat.com,
	chegu_vinod@...com, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] ipc,sem: fine grained locking for semtimedop

Sorry for the late reply; I've been swamped and am behind on my upstream mail.

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com> wrote:
> +static inline int sem_lock(struct sem_array *sma, struct sembuf *sops,
> +                             int nsops)
> +{
> +       int locknum;
> +       if (nsops == 1 && !sma->complex_count) {
> +               struct sem *sem = sma->sem_base + sops->sem_num;
> +
> +               /* Lock just the semaphore we are interested in. */
> +               spin_lock(&sem->lock);
> +
> +               /*
> +                * If sma->complex_count was set while we were spinning,
> +                * we may need to look at things we did not lock here.
> +                */
> +               if (unlikely(sma->complex_count)) {
> +                       spin_unlock(&sma->sem_perm.lock);

I believe this should be spin_unlock(&sem->lock) instead ?

> +                       goto lock_all;
> +               }
> +               locknum = sops->sem_num;
> +       } else {
> +               int i;
> +               /* Lock the sem_array, and all the semaphore locks */
> + lock_all:
> +               spin_lock(&sma->sem_perm.lock);
> +               for (i = 0; i < sma->sem_nsems; i++) {

Do we have to lock every sem from the array instead of just the ones
that are being operated on in sops ?
(I'm not sure either way, as I don't fully understand the queueing of
complex ops)

If we want to keep the loop as is, then we may at least remove the
sops argument to sem_lock() since we only care about nsops.

> +                       struct sem *sem = sma->sem_base + i;
> +                       spin_lock(&sem->lock);
> +               }
> +               locknum = -1;
> +       }
> +       return locknum;
> +}

That's all I have. Very nice test results BTW!

Reviewed-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>

-- 
Michel "Walken" Lespinasse
A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/