[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20220823080118.421576569@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2022 09:58:27 +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, Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: [PATCH 5.19 006/365] rds: add missing barrier to release_refill
From: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
commit 9f414eb409daf4f778f011cf8266d36896bb930b upstream.
The functions clear_bit and set_bit do not imply a memory barrier, thus it
may be possible that the waitqueue_active function (which does not take
any locks) is moved before clear_bit and it could miss a wakeup event.
Fix this bug by adding a memory barrier after clear_bit.
Signed-off-by: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
net/rds/ib_recv.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
--- a/net/rds/ib_recv.c
+++ b/net/rds/ib_recv.c
@@ -363,6 +363,7 @@ static int acquire_refill(struct rds_con
static void release_refill(struct rds_connection *conn)
{
clear_bit(RDS_RECV_REFILL, &conn->c_flags);
+ smp_mb__after_atomic();
/* We don't use wait_on_bit()/wake_up_bit() because our waking is in a
* hot path and finding waiters is very rare. We don't want to walk
Powered by blists - more mailing lists