From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
1vier1@web.de, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] ipc/mqueue.c: Update/document memory barriers
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2019 23:38:10 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191014063810.2delhkndor5v6bkp@linux-p48b> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191012054958.3624-4-manfred@colorfullife.com>
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019, Manfred Spraul wrote:
>Update and document memory barriers for mqueue.c:
>- ewp->state is read without any locks, thus READ_ONCE is required.
>
>- add smp_aquire__after_ctrl_dep() after the READ_ONCE, we need
> acquire semantics if the value is STATE_READY.
>
>- add an explicit memory barrier to __pipelined_op(), the
> refcount must have been increased before the updated state becomes
> visible
>
>- document why __set_current_state() may be used:
> Reading task->state cannot happen before the wake_q_add() call,
> which happens while holding info->lock. Thus the spin_unlock()
> is the RELEASE, and the spin_lock() is the ACQUIRE.
>
>For completeness: there is also a 3 CPU szenario, if the to be woken
^^^ scenario
>up task is already on another wake_q.
>Then:
>- CPU1: spin_unlock() of the task that goes to sleep is the RELEASE
>- CPU2: the spin_lock() of the waker is the ACQUIRE
>- CPU2: smp_mb__before_atomic inside wake_q_add() is the RELEASE
>- CPU3: smp_mb__after_spinlock() inside try_to_wake_up() is the ACQUIRE
>
>Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
>Cc: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
>Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Without considering the smp_store_release() in __pipelined_op(), feel
free to add my:
Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
>---
> ipc/mqueue.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/ipc/mqueue.c b/ipc/mqueue.c
>index be48c0ba92f7..b80574822f0a 100644
>--- a/ipc/mqueue.c
>+++ b/ipc/mqueue.c
>@@ -646,18 +646,26 @@ static int wq_sleep(struct mqueue_inode_info *info, int sr,
> wq_add(info, sr, ewp);
>
> for (;;) {
>+ /* memory barrier not required, we hold info->lock */
> __set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
>
> spin_unlock(&info->lock);
> time = schedule_hrtimeout_range_clock(timeout, 0,
> HRTIMER_MODE_ABS, CLOCK_REALTIME);
>
>- if (ewp->state == STATE_READY) {
>+ if (READ_ONCE(ewp->state) == STATE_READY) {
>+ /*
>+ * Pairs, together with READ_ONCE(), with
>+ * the barrier in __pipelined_op().
>+ */
>+ smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep();
> retval = 0;
> goto out;
> }
> spin_lock(&info->lock);
>- if (ewp->state == STATE_READY) {
>+
>+ /* we hold info->lock, so no memory barrier required */
>+ if (READ_ONCE(ewp->state) == STATE_READY) {
> retval = 0;
> goto out_unlock;
> }
>@@ -925,14 +933,12 @@ static inline void __pipelined_op(struct wake_q_head *wake_q,
> list_del(&this->list);
> wake_q_add(wake_q, this->task);
> /*
>- * Rely on the implicit cmpxchg barrier from wake_q_add such
>- * that we can ensure that updating receiver->state is the last
>- * write operation: As once set, the receiver can continue,
>- * and if we don't have the reference count from the wake_q,
>- * yet, at that point we can later have a use-after-free
>- * condition and bogus wakeup.
>+ * The barrier is required to ensure that the refcount increase
>+ * inside wake_q_add() is completed before the state is updated.
>+ *
>+ * The barrier pairs with READ_ONCE()+smp_mb__after_ctrl_dep().
> */
>- this->state = STATE_READY;
>+ smp_store_release(&this->state, STATE_READY);
> }
>
> /* pipelined_send() - send a message directly to the task waiting in
>@@ -1049,7 +1055,9 @@ static int do_mq_timedsend(mqd_t mqdes, const char __user *u_msg_ptr,
> } else {
> wait.task = current;
> wait.msg = (void *) msg_ptr;
>- wait.state = STATE_NONE;
>+
>+ /* memory barrier not required, we hold info->lock */
>+ WRITE_ONCE(wait.state, STATE_NONE);
> ret = wq_sleep(info, SEND, timeout, &wait);
> /*
> * wq_sleep must be called with info->lock held, and
>@@ -1152,7 +1160,9 @@ static int do_mq_timedreceive(mqd_t mqdes, char __user *u_msg_ptr,
> ret = -EAGAIN;
> } else {
> wait.task = current;
>- wait.state = STATE_NONE;
>+
>+ /* memory barrier not required, we hold info->lock */
>+ WRITE_ONCE(wait.state, STATE_NONE);
> ret = wq_sleep(info, RECV, timeout, &wait);
> msg_ptr = wait.msg;
> }
>--
>2.21.0
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-14 6:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-12 5:49 [PATCH 0/6] V2: Clarify/standardize memory barriers for ipc Manfred Spraul
2019-10-12 5:49 ` [PATCH 1/6] wake_q: Cleanup + Documentation update Manfred Spraul
2019-10-14 6:34 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2019-10-14 12:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-10-12 5:49 ` [PATCH 2/6] ipc/mqueue.c: Remove duplicated code Manfred Spraul
2019-10-14 6:35 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2019-10-14 12:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-10-12 5:49 ` [PATCH 3/6] ipc/mqueue.c: Update/document memory barriers Manfred Spraul
2019-10-14 6:38 ` Davidlohr Bueso [this message]
2019-10-14 12:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-10-14 13:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-10-14 18:06 ` Manfred Spraul
2019-10-12 5:49 ` [PATCH 4/6] ipc/msg.c: Update and document " Manfred Spraul
2019-10-12 5:49 ` [PATCH 5/6] ipc/sem.c: Document and update " Manfred Spraul
2019-10-12 5:49 ` [PATCH 6/6] Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: Clarify cmpxchg() Manfred Spraul
2019-10-14 13:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-10-14 17:49 ` Manfred Spraul
2019-10-14 19:03 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2019-10-15 7:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-10-15 20:31 ` Waiman Long
2019-10-15 1:26 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2019-10-15 7:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-10-15 16:26 ` Davidlohr Bueso
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20191014063810.2delhkndor5v6bkp@linux-p48b \
--to=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=1vier1@web.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=manfred@colorfullife.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®