linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -mm -next] ipc,sem: fix lockdep false positive

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:	Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:42:30 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
Cc:	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
	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, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	benisty.e@...il.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm -next] ipc,sem: fix lockdep false positive

On Tue, 2013-03-26 at 11:19 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > Maybe something like:
> >
> > void sma_lock(struct sem_array *sma) /* global */
> > {
> >       int i;
> >
> >       sma->global_locked = 1;
> >       smp_wmb(); /* can we merge with the LOCK ? */
> >       spin_lock(&sma->global_lock);
> >
> >       /* wait for all local locks to go away */
> >       for (i = 0; i < sma->sem_nsems; i++)
> >               spin_unlock_wait(&sem->sem_base[i]->lock);      
> > }
> >
> > void sma_lock_one(struct sem_array *sma, int nr) /* local */
> > {
> >       smp_rmb(); /* pairs with wmb in sma_lock() */
> >       if (unlikely(sma->global_locked)) { /* wait for global lock */
> >               while (sma->global_locked)
> >                       spin_unlock_wait(&sma->global_lock);
> >       }
> >       spin_lock(&sma->sem_base[nr]->lock);
> > }

I since realized there's an ordering problem with ->global_locked, we
need to use spin_is_locked() or somesuch.

Two competing sma_lock() operations will screw over the separate
variable.

> 
> > This still has the problem of a non-preemptible section of
> O(sem_nsems)
> > (with the avg wait-time on the local lock). Could we make the global
> > lock a sleeping lock?
> 
> Not without breaking your scheme above :)

How would making sma->global_lock a mutex wreck anything?

--
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/