From: Manfred Spraul <[email protected]>

3.12-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

===============

commit 2e094abfd1f29a08a60523b42d4508281b8dee0e upstream.

When I fixed bugs in the sem_lock() logic, I was more conservative than
necessary.  Therefore it is safe to replace the smp_mb() with smp_rmb().
And: With smp_rmb(), semop() syscalls are up to 10% faster.

The race we must protect against is:

        sem->lock is free
        sma->complex_count = 0
        sma->sem_perm.lock held by thread B

thread A:

A: spin_lock(&sem->lock)

                        B: sma->complex_count++; (now 1)
                        B: spin_unlock(&sma->sem_perm.lock);

A: spin_is_locked(&sma->sem_perm.lock);
A: XXXXX memory barrier
A: if (sma->complex_count == 0)

Thread A must read the increased complex_count value, i.e. the read must
not be reordered with the read of sem_perm.lock done by spin_is_locked().

Since it's about ordering of reads, smp_rmb() is sufficient.

[[email protected]: update sem_lock() comment, from Davidlohr]
Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Rafael Aquini <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby <[email protected]>
---
 ipc/sem.c | 13 ++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/ipc/sem.c b/ipc/sem.c
index db9d241af133..0c312ac04e49 100644
--- a/ipc/sem.c
+++ b/ipc/sem.c
@@ -326,10 +326,17 @@ static inline int sem_lock(struct sem_array *sma, struct 
sembuf *sops,
 
                /* Then check that the global lock is free */
                if (!spin_is_locked(&sma->sem_perm.lock)) {
-                       /* spin_is_locked() is not a memory barrier */
-                       smp_mb();
+                       /*
+                        * The ipc object lock check must be visible on all
+                        * cores before rechecking the complex count.  Otherwise
+                        * we can race with  another thread that does:
+                        *      complex_count++;
+                        *      spin_unlock(sem_perm.lock);
+                        */
+                       smp_rmb();
 
-                       /* Now repeat the test of complex_count:
+                       /*
+                        * Now repeat the test of complex_count:
                         * It can't change anymore until we drop sem->lock.
                         * Thus: if is now 0, then it will stay 0.
                         */
-- 
2.2.2

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to