[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20210514175319.12195-1-manfred@colorfullife.com>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 19:53:19 +0200
From: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: 1vier1@....de, Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
Subject: [PATCH] ipc/sem.c: use READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() for use_global_lock
The patch solves two weaknesses in ipc/sem.c:
1) The initial read of use_global_lock in sem_lock() is an
intentional race. KCSAN detects these accesses and prints
a warning.
2) The code assumes that plain C read/writes are not
mangled by the CPU or the compiler.
To solve both issues, use READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE().
Plain C reads are used in code that owns sma->sem_perm.lock.
Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
---
ipc/sem.c | 11 +++++++----
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/ipc/sem.c b/ipc/sem.c
index bf534c74293e..a0ad3a3edde2 100644
--- a/ipc/sem.c
+++ b/ipc/sem.c
@@ -217,6 +217,8 @@ static int sysvipc_sem_proc_show(struct seq_file *s, void *it);
* this smp_load_acquire(), this is guaranteed because the smp_load_acquire()
* is inside a spin_lock() and after a write from 0 to non-zero a
* spin_lock()+spin_unlock() is done.
+ * To prevent the compiler/cpu temporarily writing 0 to use_global_lock,
+ * READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() is used.
*
* 2) queue.status: (SEM_BARRIER_2)
* Initialization is done while holding sem_lock(), so no further barrier is
@@ -342,10 +344,10 @@ static void complexmode_enter(struct sem_array *sma)
* Nothing to do, just reset the
* counter until we return to simple mode.
*/
- sma->use_global_lock = USE_GLOBAL_LOCK_HYSTERESIS;
+ WRITE_ONCE(sma->use_global_lock, USE_GLOBAL_LOCK_HYSTERESIS);
return;
}
- sma->use_global_lock = USE_GLOBAL_LOCK_HYSTERESIS;
+ WRITE_ONCE(sma->use_global_lock, USE_GLOBAL_LOCK_HYSTERESIS);
for (i = 0; i < sma->sem_nsems; i++) {
sem = &sma->sems[i];
@@ -371,7 +373,8 @@ static void complexmode_tryleave(struct sem_array *sma)
/* See SEM_BARRIER_1 for purpose/pairing */
smp_store_release(&sma->use_global_lock, 0);
} else {
- sma->use_global_lock--;
+ WRITE_ONCE(sma->use_global_lock,
+ sma->use_global_lock-1);
}
}
@@ -412,7 +415,7 @@ static inline int sem_lock(struct sem_array *sma, struct sembuf *sops,
* Initial check for use_global_lock. Just an optimization,
* no locking, no memory barrier.
*/
- if (!sma->use_global_lock) {
+ if (!READ_ONCE(sma->use_global_lock)) {
/*
* It appears that no complex operation is around.
* Acquire the per-semaphore lock.
--
2.31.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists