linux-kernel - Re: [Patch v3] rwsem: fix rwsem_is

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

Message-ID: <4ACDADAB.3030403@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:15:23 +0800
From:	Amerigo Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ben Woodard <bwoodard@...l.gov>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@...l.gov>
Subject: Re: [Patch v3] rwsem: fix rwsem_is_locked() bugs

David Howells wrote:
> Amerigo Wang <amwang@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
>>  static inline int rwsem_is_locked(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>>  {
>> -	return (sem->activity != 0);
>> +	int ret;
>> +
>> +	if (spin_trylock_irq(&sem->wait_lock)) {
>> +		ret = !(list_empty(&sem->wait_list) && sem->activity == 0);
>> +		spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
>> +		return ret;
>> +	}
>> +	return 1;
>>  }
> 
> Yep...  This seems a reasonable approach, though I contend that if you're
> holding the spinlock, then sem->wait_list _must_ be empty if sem->activity is
> 0 - so that half of the test is redundant.
> 
> sem->activity == 0 and sem->wait_list not being empty is a transitional state
> that can only occur in ups and downgrades whilst they hold the spinlock.
> 


Hmm, yeah...

>> diff --git a/lib/rwsem-spinlock.c b/lib/rwsem-spinlock.c
>> index 9df3ca5..234d83f 100644
>> --- a/lib/rwsem-spinlock.c
>> +++ b/lib/rwsem-spinlock.c
>> @@ -78,7 +78,12 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int wakewrite)
>>  
>>  	/* grant an infinite number of read locks to the front of the queue */
>>   dont_wake_writers:
>> -	woken = 0;
>> +	/*
>> +	 * we increase ->activity just to make rwsem_is_locked() happy,
>> +	 * to avoid potential cache line ping-pong, we don't do this
>> +	 * within the following loop.
>> +	 */
>> +	woken = sem->activity++;
>>  	while (waiter->flags & RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_READ) {
>>  		struct list_head *next = waiter->list.next;
>>  
>> @@ -94,7 +99,7 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int wakewrite)
>>  		waiter = list_entry(next, struct rwsem_waiter, list);
>>  	}
>>  
>> -	sem->activity += woken;
>> +	sem->activity = woken;
>>  
>>   out:
>>  	return sem;
> 
> This change to __rwsem_do_wake() is all unnecessary - you're defending against
> the test of sem->activity by rwsem_is_locked() - but that now happens with the
> spinlock held.

Ah, yes, I knew this, I kept this just for completeness.
I will remove this part then. :)

THanks!

--
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/