lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [May]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] ipc/sem.c: use READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() for use_global_lock
On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 07:53:19PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> 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@colorfullife.com>

Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>

One follow-up question: If I am reading the code correctly, there is
a call to complexmode_enter() from sysvipc_sem_proc_show() that does
not hold the global lock. Does this mean that the first check of
->use_global_lock in complexmode_enter() should be marked?

Thanx, Paul

> ---
> 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
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-05-14 21:44    [W:0.042 / U:0.356 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site