The patch titled
Subject: ipc/sem.c: use READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() for use_global_lock
has been removed from the -mm tree. Its filename was
ipc-semc-use-read_once-write_once-for-use_global_lock.patch
This patch was dropped because it was merged into mainline or a subsystem tree
------------------------------------------------------
From: Manfred Spraul <manfred@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: ipc/sem.c: use READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() for use_global_lock
The patch solves three 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.
3) The comment it sysvipc_sem_proc_show() was hard to understand: The
rest of the comments in ipc/sem.c speaks about sem_perm.lock, and
suddenly this function speaks about ipc_lock_object().
To solve 1) and 2), use READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE(). Plain C reads are used
in code that owns sma->sem_perm.lock.
The comment is updated to solve 3)
[manfred@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: use READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() for use_global_lock]
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210627161919.3196-3-manfred@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210514175319.12195-1-manfred@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul <manfred@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@xxxxxxx>
Cc: <1vier1@xxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
ipc/sem.c | 14 +++++++++-----
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
--- a/ipc/sem.c~ipc-semc-use-read_once-write_once-for-use_global_lock
+++ a/ipc/sem.c
@@ -217,6 +217,8 @@ static int sysvipc_sem_proc_show(struct
* 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
* 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
/* 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_ar
* 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.
@@ -2436,7 +2439,8 @@ static int sysvipc_sem_proc_show(struct
/*
* The proc interface isn't aware of sem_lock(), it calls
- * ipc_lock_object() directly (in sysvipc_find_ipc).
+ * ipc_lock_object(), i.e. spin_lock(&sma->sem_perm.lock).
+ * (in sysvipc_find_ipc)
* In order to stay compatible with sem_lock(), we must
* enter / leave complex_mode.
*/
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from manfred@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx are
