[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191014063810.2delhkndor5v6bkp@linux-p48b>
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2019 23:38:10 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, 1vier1@....de,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] ipc/mqueue.c: Update/document memory barriers
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019, Manfred Spraul wrote:
>Update and document memory barriers for mqueue.c:
>- ewp->state is read without any locks, thus READ_ONCE is required.
>
>- add smp_aquire__after_ctrl_dep() after the READ_ONCE, we need
> acquire semantics if the value is STATE_READY.
>
>- add an explicit memory barrier to __pipelined_op(), the
> refcount must have been increased before the updated state becomes
> visible
>
>- document why __set_current_state() may be used:
> Reading task->state cannot happen before the wake_q_add() call,
> which happens while holding info->lock. Thus the spin_unlock()
> is the RELEASE, and the spin_lock() is the ACQUIRE.
>
>For completeness: there is also a 3 CPU szenario, if the to be woken
^^^ scenario
>up task is already on another wake_q.
>Then:
>- CPU1: spin_unlock() of the task that goes to sleep is the RELEASE
>- CPU2: the spin_lock() of the waker is the ACQUIRE
>- CPU2: smp_mb__before_atomic inside wake_q_add() is the RELEASE
>- CPU3: smp_mb__after_spinlock() inside try_to_wake_up() is the ACQUIRE
>
>Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
>Cc: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
>Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Without considering the smp_store_release() in __pipelined_op(), feel
free to add my:
Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
>---
> ipc/mqueue.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/ipc/mqueue.c b/ipc/mqueue.c
>index be48c0ba92f7..b80574822f0a 100644
>--- a/ipc/mqueue.c
>+++ b/ipc/mqueue.c
>@@ -646,18 +646,26 @@ static int wq_sleep(struct mqueue_inode_info *info, int sr,
> wq_add(info, sr, ewp);
>
> for (;;) {
>+ /* memory barrier not required, we hold info->lock */
> __set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
>
> spin_unlock(&info->lock);
> time = schedule_hrtimeout_range_clock(timeout, 0,
> HRTIMER_MODE_ABS, CLOCK_REALTIME);
>
>- if (ewp->state == STATE_READY) {
>+ if (READ_ONCE(ewp->state) == STATE_READY) {
>+ /*
>+ * Pairs, together with READ_ONCE(), with
>+ * the barrier in __pipelined_op().
>+ */
>+ smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep();
> retval = 0;
> goto out;
> }
> spin_lock(&info->lock);
>- if (ewp->state == STATE_READY) {
>+
>+ /* we hold info->lock, so no memory barrier required */
>+ if (READ_ONCE(ewp->state) == STATE_READY) {
> retval = 0;
> goto out_unlock;
> }
>@@ -925,14 +933,12 @@ static inline void __pipelined_op(struct wake_q_head *wake_q,
> list_del(&this->list);
> wake_q_add(wake_q, this->task);
> /*
>- * Rely on the implicit cmpxchg barrier from wake_q_add such
>- * that we can ensure that updating receiver->state is the last
>- * write operation: As once set, the receiver can continue,
>- * and if we don't have the reference count from the wake_q,
>- * yet, at that point we can later have a use-after-free
>- * condition and bogus wakeup.
>+ * The barrier is required to ensure that the refcount increase
>+ * inside wake_q_add() is completed before the state is updated.
>+ *
>+ * The barrier pairs with READ_ONCE()+smp_mb__after_ctrl_dep().
> */
>- this->state = STATE_READY;
>+ smp_store_release(&this->state, STATE_READY);
> }
>
> /* pipelined_send() - send a message directly to the task waiting in
>@@ -1049,7 +1055,9 @@ static int do_mq_timedsend(mqd_t mqdes, const char __user *u_msg_ptr,
> } else {
> wait.task = current;
> wait.msg = (void *) msg_ptr;
>- wait.state = STATE_NONE;
>+
>+ /* memory barrier not required, we hold info->lock */
>+ WRITE_ONCE(wait.state, STATE_NONE);
> ret = wq_sleep(info, SEND, timeout, &wait);
> /*
> * wq_sleep must be called with info->lock held, and
>@@ -1152,7 +1160,9 @@ static int do_mq_timedreceive(mqd_t mqdes, char __user *u_msg_ptr,
> ret = -EAGAIN;
> } else {
> wait.task = current;
>- wait.state = STATE_NONE;
>+
>+ /* memory barrier not required, we hold info->lock */
>+ WRITE_ONCE(wait.state, STATE_NONE);
> ret = wq_sleep(info, RECV, timeout, &wait);
> msg_ptr = wait.msg;
> }
>--
>2.21.0
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists