linux-kernel - [RFC] Kernel condition variables

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <48EE56F3.9000001@2net.co.uk>
Date:	Thu, 09 Oct 2008 20:09:39 +0100
From:	Chris <chris@...t.co.uk>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC] Kernel condition variables

Hi,

I would like to propose an addition to kernel synchronisation that does
something similar to a user-space POSIX condition variable. I have
included a rough patch below.

Why might this be a good idea? Right now if you have some code that is
waiting for a condition to become true and you want to protect the
evaluation of the condition you have to do something like this

Consumer:
	mutex_lock (&lock);
	while (!condition) {
		mutex_unlock (&lock);
		wait_event (wq, condition);
		mutex_lock (&lock);
	}
	/* do whatever */
	mutex_unlock (&lock);

Producer:
	mutex_lock (&lock);
	/* modify the condition: may be as simple as... */
	condition = 1;
	mutex_unlock (&lock);
	wake_up (&wq);

This is guaranteed against races because (a) wait_event checks the
condition and puts the task to sleep atomically and (b) we re-test the
condition with the mutex locked to make sure that multiple tasks have
not been released from the event and the first one to run has negated
the condition again, leaving the others with nothing to do but not
sleeping on the wait queue.

Here it is with my cond_wait instead of wait_event. The only change is
that the condition is tested first with the lock held in traditional
condvar style.

Consumer:
	mutex_lock (&lock);
	while (!condition)
		cond_wait (&wq, &lock);
	/* do whatever */
	mutex_unlock (&lock);

Producer:
	mutex_lock (&lock);
	/* modify the condition: may be as simple as... */
	condition = 1;
	mutex_unlock (&lock);
	wake_up (&wq);

cond_wait puts the task to sleep and then releases the mutex. When it
wakes up, the mutex is locked once more. This implementation is neater
and the condition is evaluated fewer times. But, the main difference is
that the condition variable makes you think through the locking
requirements, whereas wait_event allows you to be lazy.

Of course, there would have to be a family of cond_waits with variants
for interruptible sleep, timeout, and spin lock instead of mutex.

Here is the patch.

--- wait.h.orig	2008-10-08 16:53:48.000000000 +0100
+++ wait.h	2008-10-08 17:04:55.000000000 +0100
@@ -513,6 +513,26 @@ static inline int wait_on_bit_lock(void
  		return 0;
  	return out_of_line_wait_on_bit_lock(word, bit, action, mode);
  }
+
+/**
+ * cond_wait - wait for a condition to become true. The condition
+ * is tested before this call with the mutex locked.
+ * @wq: the wait queue to sleep on
+ * @mutex: a *locked* mutex
+ */
+void cond_wait (wait_queue_head_t *wq, struct mutex *mutex)
+{
+	DEFINE_WAIT(__wait);
+
+	prepare_to_wait(wq, &__wait, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
+	mutex_unlock (mutex);
+	schedule();
+	mutex_lock (mutex);
+	finish_wait(wq, &__wait);
+}

  #endif /* __KERNEL__ */

-- 
Chris Simmonds                   Embedded Linux engineer
2net Limited                     http://www.2net.co.uk/

--
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/