linux-kernel - [PATCH 5.4 28/74] locking/ww_mutex: Simplify use_ww_ctx & ww

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20210405085025.650890302@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Mon,  5 Apr 2021 10:53:52 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 5.4 28/74] locking/ww_mutex: Simplify use_ww_ctx & ww_ctx handling

From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>

[ Upstream commit 5de2055d31ea88fd9ae9709ac95c372a505a60fa ]

The use_ww_ctx flag is passed to mutex_optimistic_spin(), but the
function doesn't use it. The frequent use of the (use_ww_ctx && ww_ctx)
combination is repetitive.

In fact, ww_ctx should not be used at all if !use_ww_ctx.  Simplify
ww_mutex code by dropping use_ww_ctx from mutex_optimistic_spin() an
clear ww_ctx if !use_ww_ctx. In this way, we can replace (use_ww_ctx &&
ww_ctx) by just (ww_ctx).

Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Acked-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210316153119.13802-2-longman@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
---
 kernel/locking/mutex.c | 25 ++++++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
index 468a9b8422e3..07a9f9f46e03 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
@@ -636,7 +636,7 @@ static inline int mutex_can_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lock)
  */
 static __always_inline bool
 mutex_optimistic_spin(struct mutex *lock, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx,
-		      const bool use_ww_ctx, struct mutex_waiter *waiter)
+		      struct mutex_waiter *waiter)
 {
 	if (!waiter) {
 		/*
@@ -712,7 +712,7 @@ fail:
 #else
 static __always_inline bool
 mutex_optimistic_spin(struct mutex *lock, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx,
-		      const bool use_ww_ctx, struct mutex_waiter *waiter)
+		      struct mutex_waiter *waiter)
 {
 	return false;
 }
@@ -932,6 +932,9 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
 	struct ww_mutex *ww;
 	int ret;
 
+	if (!use_ww_ctx)
+		ww_ctx = NULL;
+
 	might_sleep();
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES
@@ -939,7 +942,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
 #endif
 
 	ww = container_of(lock, struct ww_mutex, base);
-	if (use_ww_ctx && ww_ctx) {
+	if (ww_ctx) {
 		if (unlikely(ww_ctx == READ_ONCE(ww->ctx)))
 			return -EALREADY;
 
@@ -956,10 +959,10 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
 	mutex_acquire_nest(&lock->dep_map, subclass, 0, nest_lock, ip);
 
 	if (__mutex_trylock(lock) ||
-	    mutex_optimistic_spin(lock, ww_ctx, use_ww_ctx, NULL)) {
+	    mutex_optimistic_spin(lock, ww_ctx, NULL)) {
 		/* got the lock, yay! */
 		lock_acquired(&lock->dep_map, ip);
-		if (use_ww_ctx && ww_ctx)
+		if (ww_ctx)
 			ww_mutex_set_context_fastpath(ww, ww_ctx);
 		preempt_enable();
 		return 0;
@@ -970,7 +973,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
 	 * After waiting to acquire the wait_lock, try again.
 	 */
 	if (__mutex_trylock(lock)) {
-		if (use_ww_ctx && ww_ctx)
+		if (ww_ctx)
 			__ww_mutex_check_waiters(lock, ww_ctx);
 
 		goto skip_wait;
@@ -1023,7 +1026,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
 			goto err;
 		}
 
-		if (use_ww_ctx && ww_ctx) {
+		if (ww_ctx) {
 			ret = __ww_mutex_check_kill(lock, &waiter, ww_ctx);
 			if (ret)
 				goto err;
@@ -1036,7 +1039,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
 		 * ww_mutex needs to always recheck its position since its waiter
 		 * list is not FIFO ordered.
 		 */
-		if ((use_ww_ctx && ww_ctx) || !first) {
+		if (ww_ctx || !first) {
 			first = __mutex_waiter_is_first(lock, &waiter);
 			if (first)
 				__mutex_set_flag(lock, MUTEX_FLAG_HANDOFF);
@@ -1049,7 +1052,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
 		 * or we must see its unlock and acquire.
 		 */
 		if (__mutex_trylock(lock) ||
-		    (first && mutex_optimistic_spin(lock, ww_ctx, use_ww_ctx, &waiter)))
+		    (first && mutex_optimistic_spin(lock, ww_ctx, &waiter)))
 			break;
 
 		spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock);
@@ -1058,7 +1061,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
 acquired:
 	__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
 
-	if (use_ww_ctx && ww_ctx) {
+	if (ww_ctx) {
 		/*
 		 * Wound-Wait; we stole the lock (!first_waiter), check the
 		 * waiters as anyone might want to wound us.
@@ -1078,7 +1081,7 @@ skip_wait:
 	/* got the lock - cleanup and rejoice! */
 	lock_acquired(&lock->dep_map, ip);
 
-	if (use_ww_ctx && ww_ctx)
+	if (ww_ctx)
 		ww_mutex_lock_acquired(ww, ww_ctx);
 
 	spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
-- 
2.30.1