[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <C2D7FE5348E1B147BCA15975FBA23075012B091016@us01wembx1.internal.synopsys.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 00:42:46 +0000
From: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Eugeniy Paltsev <Eugeniy.Paltsev@...opsys.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org>,
Alexey Brodkin <Alexey.Brodkin@...opsys.com>,
"yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com" <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Patch "asm-generic/bitops/lock.h: Rewrite using atomic_fetch_"
causes kernel crash
On 08/30/2018 02:51 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> Yeah, the bit_spin_lock()/__bit_spin_unlock() race described in f75d48644c56a
> boils down to concurrent atomic_long_set_release() vs
> atomic_long_fetch_or_acquire(), which really needs to work.
I don't see how: __clear_bit_unlock() reads @old, flips a bit and then calls
atomic_long_set_release() so the race is not just with set_release.
static inline int test_and_set_bit_lock(unsigned int nr, volatile unsigned
long *p)
{
long old;
unsigned long mask = (1UL << ((nr) % 32));
p += ((nr) / 32);
old = atomic_long_fetch_or_acquire(mask, (atomic_long_t *)p);
return !!(old & mask);
}
static inline void __clear_bit_unlock(unsigned int nr, volatile unsigned long *p)
{
unsigned long old;
p += ((nr) / 32);
old = // soem typecheck magic on *p
old &= ~(1UL << ((nr) % 32));
atomic_long_set_release((atomic_long_t *)p, old);
}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists