Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH V5] x86 spinlock: Fix memory corruption on completing completions

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 02/16/2015 10:17 PM, David Vrabel wrote:
On 15/02/15 17:30, Raghavendra K T wrote:
--- a/arch/x86/xen/spinlock.c
+++ b/arch/x86/xen/spinlock.c
@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ static u8 zero_stats;
  static inline void check_zero(void)
  {
  	u8 ret;
-	u8 old = ACCESS_ONCE(zero_stats);
+	u8 old = READ_ONCE(zero_stats);
  	if (unlikely(old)) {
  		ret = cmpxchg(&zero_stats, old, 0);
  		/* This ensures only one fellow resets the stat */
@@ -112,6 +112,7 @@ __visible void xen_lock_spinning(struct arch_spinlock *lock, __ticket_t want)
  	struct xen_lock_waiting *w = this_cpu_ptr(&lock_waiting);
  	int cpu = smp_processor_id();
  	u64 start;
+	__ticket_t head;
  	unsigned long flags;

  	/* If kicker interrupts not initialized yet, just spin */
@@ -159,11 +160,15 @@ __visible void xen_lock_spinning(struct arch_spinlock *lock, __ticket_t want)
  	 */
  	__ticket_enter_slowpath(lock);

+	/* make sure enter_slowpath, which is atomic does not cross the read */
+	smp_mb__after_atomic();
+
  	/*
  	 * check again make sure it didn't become free while
  	 * we weren't looking
  	 */
-	if (ACCESS_ONCE(lock->tickets.head) == want) {
+	head = READ_ONCE(lock->tickets.head);
+	if (__tickets_equal(head, want)) {
  		add_stats(TAKEN_SLOW_PICKUP, 1);
  		goto out;
  	}
@@ -204,8 +209,8 @@ static void xen_unlock_kick(struct arch_spinlock *lock, __ticket_t next)
  		const struct xen_lock_waiting *w = &per_cpu(lock_waiting, cpu);

  		/* Make sure we read lock before want */
-		if (ACCESS_ONCE(w->lock) == lock &&
-		    ACCESS_ONCE(w->want) == next) {
+		if (READ_ONCE(w->lock) == lock &&
+		    READ_ONCE(w->want) == next) {
  			add_stats(RELEASED_SLOW_KICKED, 1);
  			xen_send_IPI_one(cpu, XEN_SPIN_UNLOCK_VECTOR);
  			break;

Acked-by: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@xxxxxxxxxx>

Although some of the ACCESS_ONCE to READ_ONCE changes are cosmetic and
are perhaps best left out of a patch destined for stable.


Thanks.
Yes, will send out a separate patch for -stable without READ_ONCE changes once this patches goes in.




_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization




[Index of Archives]     [KVM Development]     [Libvirt Development]     [Libvirt Users]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux