[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180314182017.GB4129@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 19:20:17 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>
Cc: Alexey Brodkin <Alexey.Brodkin@...opsys.com>,
"linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: arc_usr_cmpxchg and preemption
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 06:53:52PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 09:58:19AM -0700, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>
> > Well it is broken wrt the semantics the syscall is supposed to provide.
> > Preemption disabling is what prevents a concurrent thread from coming in and
> > modifying the same location (Imagine a variable which is being cmpxchg
> > concurrently by 2 threads).
> >
> > One approach is to do it the MIPS way, emulate the llsc flag - set it under
> > preemption disabled section and clear it in switch_to
>
> *shudder*... just catch the -EFAULT, force the write fault and retry.
>
> Something like:
>
> int sys_cmpxchg(u32 __user *user_ptr, u32 old, u32 new)
> {
> u32 val;
> int ret;
Also very important:
if ((unsigned long)user_ptr & 0x3)
return -EINVAL;
You must disallow unaligned atomics, otherwise the below can cross a
page-boundary (and unaligned atomics are insane in any case).
> again:
> ret = 0;
>
> preempt_disable();
> val = get_user(user_ptr);
> if (val == old)
> ret = put_user(new, user_ptr);
> preempt_enable();
>
> if (ret == -EFAULT) {
> struct page *page;
> ret = get_user_pages_fast((unsigned long)user_ptr, 1, 1, &page);
> if (ret < 0)
> return ret;
> put_page(page);
> goto again;
> }
>
> return ret;
> }
Powered by blists - more mailing lists