On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 16:02:29 +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 02:25:52PM +0000, Ali Saidi wrote:
> > While this code is executed with the wait_lock held, a reader can
> > acquire the lock without holding wait_lock. The writer side loops
> > checking the value with the atomic_cond_read_acquire(), but only truly
> > acquires the lock when the compare-and-exchange is completed
> > successfully which isn’t ordered. The other atomic operations from this
> > point are release-ordered and thus reads after the lock acquisition can
> > be completed before the lock is truly acquired which violates the
> > guarantees the lock should be making.
>
> I think it would be worth spelling this out with an example. The issue
> appears to be a concurrent reader in interrupt context taking and releasing
> the lock in the window where the writer has returned from the
> atomic_cond_read_acquire() but has not yet performed the cmpxchg(). Loads
> can be speculated during this time, but the A-B-A of the lock word
> from _QW_WAITING to (_QW_WAITING | _QR_BIAS) and back to _QW_WAITING allows
> the atomic_cmpxchg_relaxed() to succeed. Is that right?
You're right. What we're seeing is an A-B-A problem that can allow
atomic_cond_read_acquire() to succeed and before the cmpxchg succeeds a reader
performs an A-B-A on the lock which allows the core to observe a read that
follows the cmpxchg ahead of the cmpxchg succeeding.
We've seen a problem in epoll where the reader does a xchg while
holding the read lock, but the writer can see a value change out from under it.
Writer | Reader 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ep_scan_ready_list() |
|- write_lock_irq() |
|- queued_write_lock_slowpath() |
|- atomic_cond_read_acquire() |
| read_lock_irqsave(&ep->lock, flags);
| chain_epi_lockless()
| epi->next = xchg(&ep->ovflist, epi);
| read_unlock_irqrestore(&ep->lock, flags);
|
atomic_cmpxchg_relaxed() |
READ_ONCE(ep->ovflist);
>
> With that in mind, it would probably be a good idea to eyeball the qspinlock
> slowpath as well, as that uses both atomic_cond_read_acquire() and
> atomic_try_cmpxchg_relaxed().
It seems plausible that the same thing could occur here in qspinlock:
if ((val & _Q_TAIL_MASK) == tail) {
if (atomic_try_cmpxchg_relaxed(&lock->val, &val, _Q_LOCKED_VAL))
goto release; /* No contention */
}
>
> > Fixes: b519b56e378ee ("locking/qrwlock: Use atomic_cond_read_acquire() when spinning in qrwloc")
Ack, will fix.
> Typo in the quoted subject ('qrwloc').
>
> > Signed-off-by: Ali Saidi <alisaidi@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > ---
> > kernel/locking/qrwlock.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c b/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
> > index 4786dd271b45..10770f6ac4d9 100644
> > --- a/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
> > +++ b/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
> > @@ -73,8 +73,8 @@ void queued_write_lock_slowpath(struct qrwlock *lock)
> >
> > /* When no more readers or writers, set the locked flag */
> > do {
> > - atomic_cond_read_acquire(&lock->cnts, VAL == _QW_WAITING);
> > - } while (atomic_cmpxchg_relaxed(&lock->cnts, _QW_WAITING,
> > + atomic_cond_read_relaxed(&lock->cnts, VAL == _QW_WAITING);
> > + } while (atomic_cmpxchg_acquire(&lock->cnts, _QW_WAITING,
> > _QW_LOCKED) != _QW_WAITING);
>
> Patch looks good, so with an updated message:
>
> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Will
