From: Eric Dumazet <eduma...@google.com>
Using bit fields is dangerous on ppc64, as the compiler uses 64bit
instructions to manipulate them. If the 64bit word includes any
atomic_t or spinlock_t, we can lose critical concurrent changes.
This is happening in af_unix, where unix_sk(sk)->gc_candidate/
gc_maybe_cycle/lock share the same 64bit word.
This leads to fatal deadlock, as one/several cpus spin forever
on a spinlock that will never be available again.
Reported-by: Ambrose Feinstein <ambr...@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eduma...@google.com>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <b...@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <pau...@samba.org>
---
Could ppc64 experts confirm using byte is safe, or should we really add
a 32bit hole after the spinlock ? If so, I wonder how many other places
need a change...
include/net/af_unix.h | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/net/af_unix.h b/include/net/af_unix.h
index a8836e8..4520a23f 100644
--- a/include/net/af_unix.h
+++ b/include/net/af_unix.h
@@ -57,8 +57,8 @@ struct unix_sock {
struct list_head link;
atomic_long_t inflight;
spinlock_t lock;
- unsigned int gc_candidate : 1;
- unsigned int gc_maybe_cycle : 1;
+ unsigned char gc_candidate;
+ unsigned char gc_maybe_cycle;
unsigned char recursion_level;
struct socket_wq peer_wq;
};
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
