[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 08:50:22 +0200
From: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
To: Felix Hübner <felixh@...ormatik.uni-bremen.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: bitbucket@...ine.de, riel@...hat.com, dbueso@...e.de,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: PROBLEM: Concurrency issue in sem_lock
Hi,
On 10/09/2015 10:24 AM, Felix Hübner wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have just reported a concurrency issue in the implementation of
> sem_lock, see https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105651
>
> [...]
> # P0 does spin_lock(&sem->lock); in line 336.
>
> spin_lock(&sem->lock);
[...]
> # P2 performs rest of semtimedop, increments complex_count and ends up
> in line 1961 and starts to sleep.
>
> return -1;
> }
That is the problem: semtimedop() increments complex_count - thus
sem_wait_array() returns without a spin_unlock_wait() loop - but P0
already owns spin_lock(&sem->lock).
How do we want to fix it?
- revert my patch (simplify code, but slower for one corner case)
- add the missing sem_wait_array (more complex, but also better for
complex semops).
what do you think?
(patch untested)
--
Manfred
View attachment "0001-ipc-sem.c-Alternative-for-fixing-Concurrency-bug.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (1360 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists