[PATCH] IPC: cleanup some code and wrong comments about semundo list managment

[PATCH] IPC: cleanup some code and wrong comments about semundo list managment

[Pierre Peiffer]

From: Pierre Peiffer <pierre.peiffer@bull.net>

Some comments about sem_undo_list seem wrong.
About the comment above unlock_semundo:
"... If task2 now exits before task1 releases the lock (by calling
unlock_semundo()), then task1 will never call spin_unlock(). ..."

This is just wrong, I see no reason for which task1 will not call
spin_unlock... The rest of this comment is also wrong... Unless I
miss something (of course).

Finally, (un)lock_semundo functions are useless, so remove them
for simplification. (this avoids an useless if statement)

Signed-off-by: Pierre Peiffer <pierre.peiffer@bull.net>

---

 ipc/sem.c |   46 ++++++----------------------------------------
 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)

diff --git a/ipc/sem.c b/ipc/sem.c
index b676fef..5585817 100644
--- a/ipc/sem.c
+++ b/ipc/sem.c
@@ -957,36 +957,6 @@ asmlinkage long sys_semctl (int semid, int semnum, int cmd, union semun arg)
 	}
 }
 
-static inline void lock_semundo(void)
-{
-	struct sem_undo_list *undo_list;
-
-	undo_list = current->sysvsem.undo_list;
-	if (undo_list)
-		spin_lock(&undo_list->lock);
-}
-
-/* This code has an interaction with copy_semundo().
- * Consider; two tasks are sharing the undo_list. task1
- * acquires the undo_list lock in lock_semundo().  If task2 now
- * exits before task1 releases the lock (by calling
- * unlock_semundo()), then task1 will never call spin_unlock().
- * This leave the sem_undo_list in a locked state.  If task1 now creats task3
- * and once again shares the sem_undo_list, the sem_undo_list will still be
- * locked, and future SEM_UNDO operations will deadlock.  This case is
- * dealt with in copy_semundo() by having it reinitialize the spin lock when 
- * the refcnt goes from 1 to 2.
- */
-static inline void unlock_semundo(void)
-{
-	struct sem_undo_list *undo_list;
-
-	undo_list = current->sysvsem.undo_list;
-	if (undo_list)
-		spin_unlock(&undo_list->lock);
-}
-
-
 /* If the task doesn't already have a undo_list, then allocate one
  * here.  We guarantee there is only one thread using this undo list,
  * and current is THE ONE
@@ -1047,9 +1017,9 @@ static struct sem_undo *find_undo(struct ipc_namespace *ns, int semid)
 	if (error)
 		return ERR_PTR(error);
 
-	lock_semundo();
+	spin_lock(&ulp->lock);
 	un = lookup_undo(ulp, semid);
-	unlock_semundo();
+	spin_unlock(&ulp->lock);
 	if (likely(un!=NULL))
 		goto out;
 
@@ -1077,10 +1047,10 @@ static struct sem_undo *find_undo(struct ipc_namespace *ns, int semid)
 	new->semadj = (short *) &new[1];
 	new->semid = semid;
 
-	lock_semundo();
+	spin_lock(&ulp->lock);
 	un = lookup_undo(ulp, semid);
 	if (un) {
-		unlock_semundo();
+		spin_unlock(&ulp->lock);
 		kfree(new);
 		ipc_lock_by_ptr(&sma->sem_perm);
 		ipc_rcu_putref(sma);
@@ -1091,7 +1061,7 @@ static struct sem_undo *find_undo(struct ipc_namespace *ns, int semid)
 	ipc_rcu_putref(sma);
 	if (sma->sem_perm.deleted) {
 		sem_unlock(sma);
-		unlock_semundo();
+		spin_unlock(&ulp->lock);
 		kfree(new);
 		un = ERR_PTR(-EIDRM);
 		goto out;
@@ -1102,7 +1072,7 @@ static struct sem_undo *find_undo(struct ipc_namespace *ns, int semid)
 	sma->undo = new;
 	sem_unlock(sma);
 	un = new;
-	unlock_semundo();
+	spin_unlock(&ulp->lock);
 out:
 	return un;
 }
@@ -1279,10 +1249,6 @@ asmlinkage long sys_semop (int semid, struct sembuf __user *tsops, unsigned nsop
 
 /* If CLONE_SYSVSEM is set, establish sharing of SEM_UNDO state between
  * parent and child tasks.
- *
- * See the notes above unlock_semundo() regarding the spin_lock_init()
- * in this code.  Initialize the undo_list->lock here instead of get_undo_list()
- * because of the reasoning in the comment above unlock_semundo.
  */
 
 int copy_semundo(unsigned long clone_flags, struct task_struct *tsk)


Pierre Peiffer

Re: [PATCH] IPC: cleanup some code and wrong comments about semundo list managment

[Serge E. Hallyn]

Quoting Pierre Peiffer (Pierre.Peiffer@bull.net):
> From: Pierre Peiffer <pierre.peiffer@bull.net>
> 
> Some comments about sem_undo_list seem wrong.
> About the comment above unlock_semundo:
> "... If task2 now exits before task1 releases the lock (by calling
> unlock_semundo()), then task1 will never call spin_unlock(). ..."
> 
> This is just wrong, I see no reason for which task1 will not call
> spin_unlock... The rest of this comment is also wrong... Unless I
> miss something (of course).

I see, that was changed since commit
00a5dfdb93f74e4d95fb0d83c890728e331f8810 in 2005  :)

> Finally, (un)lock_semundo functions are useless, so remove them
> for simplification. (this avoids an useless if statement)

Looks correct.

> Signed-off-by: Pierre Peiffer <pierre.peiffer@bull.net>

Acked-by: Serge Hallyn <serue@us.ibm.com>

> ---
> 
>  ipc/sem.c |   46 ++++++----------------------------------------
>  1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/ipc/sem.c b/ipc/sem.c
> index b676fef..5585817 100644
> --- a/ipc/sem.c
> +++ b/ipc/sem.c
> @@ -957,36 +957,6 @@ asmlinkage long sys_semctl (int semid, int semnum, int cmd, union semun arg)
>  	}
>  }
>  
> -static inline void lock_semundo(void)
> -{
> -	struct sem_undo_list *undo_list;
> -
> -	undo_list = current->sysvsem.undo_list;
> -	if (undo_list)
> -		spin_lock(&undo_list->lock);
> -}
> -
> -/* This code has an interaction with copy_semundo().
> - * Consider; two tasks are sharing the undo_list. task1
> - * acquires the undo_list lock in lock_semundo().  If task2 now
> - * exits before task1 releases the lock (by calling
> - * unlock_semundo()), then task1 will never call spin_unlock().
> - * This leave the sem_undo_list in a locked state.  If task1 now creats task3
> - * and once again shares the sem_undo_list, the sem_undo_list will still be
> - * locked, and future SEM_UNDO operations will deadlock.  This case is
> - * dealt with in copy_semundo() by having it reinitialize the spin lock when 
> - * the refcnt goes from 1 to 2.
> - */
> -static inline void unlock_semundo(void)
> -{
> -	struct sem_undo_list *undo_list;
> -
> -	undo_list = current->sysvsem.undo_list;
> -	if (undo_list)
> -		spin_unlock(&undo_list->lock);
> -}
> -
> -
>  /* If the task doesn't already have a undo_list, then allocate one
>   * here.  We guarantee there is only one thread using this undo list,
>   * and current is THE ONE
> @@ -1047,9 +1017,9 @@ static struct sem_undo *find_undo(struct ipc_namespace *ns, int semid)
>  	if (error)
>  		return ERR_PTR(error);
>  
> -	lock_semundo();
> +	spin_lock(&ulp->lock);
>  	un = lookup_undo(ulp, semid);
> -	unlock_semundo();
> +	spin_unlock(&ulp->lock);
>  	if (likely(un!=NULL))
>  		goto out;
>  
> @@ -1077,10 +1047,10 @@ static struct sem_undo *find_undo(struct ipc_namespace *ns, int semid)
>  	new->semadj = (short *) &new[1];
>  	new->semid = semid;
>  
> -	lock_semundo();
> +	spin_lock(&ulp->lock);
>  	un = lookup_undo(ulp, semid);
>  	if (un) {
> -		unlock_semundo();
> +		spin_unlock(&ulp->lock);
>  		kfree(new);
>  		ipc_lock_by_ptr(&sma->sem_perm);
>  		ipc_rcu_putref(sma);
> @@ -1091,7 +1061,7 @@ static struct sem_undo *find_undo(struct ipc_namespace *ns, int semid)
>  	ipc_rcu_putref(sma);
>  	if (sma->sem_perm.deleted) {
>  		sem_unlock(sma);
> -		unlock_semundo();
> +		spin_unlock(&ulp->lock);
>  		kfree(new);
>  		un = ERR_PTR(-EIDRM);
>  		goto out;
> @@ -1102,7 +1072,7 @@ static struct sem_undo *find_undo(struct ipc_namespace *ns, int semid)
>  	sma->undo = new;
>  	sem_unlock(sma);
>  	un = new;
> -	unlock_semundo();
> +	spin_unlock(&ulp->lock);
>  out:
>  	return un;
>  }
> @@ -1279,10 +1249,6 @@ asmlinkage long sys_semop (int semid, struct sembuf __user *tsops, unsigned nsop
>  
>  /* If CLONE_SYSVSEM is set, establish sharing of SEM_UNDO state between
>   * parent and child tasks.
> - *
> - * See the notes above unlock_semundo() regarding the spin_lock_init()
> - * in this code.  Initialize the undo_list->lock here instead of get_undo_list()
> - * because of the reasoning in the comment above unlock_semundo.
>   */
>  
>  int copy_semundo(unsigned long clone_flags, struct task_struct *tsk)
> 
> 
> Pierre Peiffer
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/