lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3] sock: Make sock->sk_stamp thread-safe
From
From: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 18:55:09 -0800

> Al Viro mentioned (Message-ID
> <20170626041334.GZ10672@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>)
> that there is probably a race condition
> lurking in accesses of sk_stamp on 32-bit machines.
>
> sock->sk_stamp is of type ktime_t which is always an s64.
> On a 32 bit architecture, we might run into situations of
> unsafe access as the access to the field becomes non atomic.
>
> Use seqlocks for synchronization.
> This allows us to avoid using spinlocks for readers as
> readers do not need mutual exclusion.
>
> Another approach to solve this is to require sk_lock for all
> modifications of the timestamps. The current approach allows
> for timestamps to have their own lock: sk_stamp_lock.
> This allows for the patch to not compete with already
> existing critical sections, and side effects are limited
> to the paths in the patch.
>
> The addition of the new field maintains the data locality
> optimizations from
> commit 9115e8cd2a0c ("net: reorganize struct sock for better data
> locality")
>
> Note that all the instances of the sk_stamp accesses
> are either through the ioctl or the syscall recvmsg.
>
> Signed-off-by: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@gmail.com>

Ok, I'm fine with this, so applied and queued up for -stable.

I will note in passing that there are several 32-bit architectures
that have 64-bit loads. Sparc is one such case. And they would not
need these changes.

But I don't think it's practical or worthwhile to add that level of
consideration into your changes. I'd rather the commit stay as simple
as possible.

Thanks!

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-01 18:51    [W:0.040 / U:1.864 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site