[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130506221152.GA24639@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 23:11:52 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>,
"linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org" <linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] alpha: spinlock: don't perform memory access in locked
critical section
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 10:12:38PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> The other (hopefully also wrong) worry that I had was when the manual
> states that:
>
> `If the virtual and physical addresses for a LDx_L and STx_C sequence are
> not within the same naturally aligned 16-byte sections of virtual and
> physical memory, that sequence may always fail, or may succeed despite
> another processor’s store to the lock range; hence, no useful program
> should do this'
>
> This seems like it might have a curious interaction with CoW paging if
> userspace is trying to use these instructions for a lock, since the
> physical address for the conditional store might differ from the one which
> was passed to the load due to CoW triggered by a different thread. Anyway,
> I was still thinking about that one and haven't got as far as TLB
> invalidation yet :)
In case anybody is interested, the software broadcasting of TLB maintenance
solves this problem because the PAL_rti on the ret_to_user path will clear
the lock flag.
Will
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists