[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20200110165636.28035-4-will@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 16:56:31 +0000
From: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com>
Subject: [RFC PATCH 3/8] fault_inject: Don't rely on "return value" from WRITE_ONCE()
It's a bit weird that WRITE_ONCE() evaluates to the value it stores and
it's different to smp_store_release(), which can't be used this way.
In preparation for preventing this in WRITE_ONCE(), change the fault
injection code to use a local variable instead.
Cc: Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
---
lib/fault-inject.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/lib/fault-inject.c b/lib/fault-inject.c
index 8186ca84910b..ce12621b4275 100644
--- a/lib/fault-inject.c
+++ b/lib/fault-inject.c
@@ -106,7 +106,9 @@ bool should_fail(struct fault_attr *attr, ssize_t size)
unsigned int fail_nth = READ_ONCE(current->fail_nth);
if (fail_nth) {
- if (!WRITE_ONCE(current->fail_nth, fail_nth - 1))
+ fail_nth--;
+ WRITE_ONCE(current->fail_nth, fail_nth);
+ if (!fail_nth)
goto fail;
return false;
--
2.25.0.rc1.283.g88dfdc4193-goog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists