linux-kernel - Re: [BUG]locking/rwsem: only clean RWSEM_FLAG

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]

Date:   Thu, 11 Nov 2021 16:09:35 -0500
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
        马振华 <mazhenhua@...omi.com>,
        mingo <mingo@...hat.com>, will <will@...nel.org>,
        "boqun.feng" <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG]locking/rwsem: only clean RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF when already
 set

On 11/11/21 15:50, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> So I suspect that if..
>
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 02:36:52PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>>   static inline bool rwsem_try_write_lock(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
>> -					enum writer_wait_state wstate)
>> +					struct rwsem_waiter *waiter)
>>   {
>>   	long count, new;
>> +	bool first = rwsem_first_waiter(sem) == waiter;
>>   
>>   	lockdep_assert_held(&sem->wait_lock);
>>   
>> @@ -546,13 +541,14 @@ static inline bool rwsem_try_write_lock(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
>>   	do {
>>   		bool has_handoff = !!(count & RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF);
>>   
>> -		if (has_handoff && wstate == WRITER_NOT_FIRST)
>> +		if (has_handoff && !first)
>>   			return false;
>>   
>>   		new = count;
>>   
>>   		if (count & RWSEM_LOCK_MASK) {
>> -			if (has_handoff || (wstate != WRITER_HANDOFF))
>> +			if (has_handoff || (!waiter->rt_task &&
>> +					    !time_after(jiffies, waiter->timeout)))
>>   				return false;
> we delete this whole condition, and..
I don't think we can take out this if test.
>
>>   
>>   			new |= RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF;
>> @@ -889,6 +888,24 @@ rwsem_spin_on_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>>   }
>>   #endif
>>   
>> +/*
>> + * Common code to handle rwsem flags in out_nolock path with wait_lock held.
>> + */
>> +static inline void rwsem_out_nolock_clear_flags(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
>> +						struct rwsem_waiter *waiter)
>> +{
>> +	long flags = 0;
>> +
>> +	list_del(&waiter->list);
>> +	if (list_empty(&sem->wait_list))
>> +		flags = RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF | RWSEM_FLAG_WAITERS;
>> +	else if (waiter->handoff_set)
>> +		flags = RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF;
> take out this else,
>
>> +
>> +	if (flags)
>> +		atomic_long_andnot(flags,  &sem->count);
>> +}
> We get the inherit thing for free, no?
>
> Once HANDOFF is set, new readers are blocked. And then allow any first
> waiter to acquire the lock, who cares if it was the one responsible for
> having set the HANDOFF bit.

Yes, we can have the policy of inheriting the HANDOFF bit as long as it 
is consistent which will be the case here with a common out_nolock 
function. I can go with that. I just have to document this fact in the 
comment.

Cheers,
Longman