From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759624AbbIDNPW (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Sep 2015 09:15:22 -0400 Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]:50483 "EHLO youngberry.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933201AbbIDNKd (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Sep 2015 09:10:33 -0400 From: Luis Henriques To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com Cc: Manfred Spraul , "Paul E. McKenney" , Kirill Tkhai , Ingo Molnar , Josh Poimboeuf , Davidlohr Bueso , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Luis Henriques Subject: [PATCH 3.16.y-ckt 113/130] ipc/sem.c: update/correct memory barriers Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 14:08:21 +0100 Message-Id: <1441372118-5933-114-git-send-email-luis.henriques@canonical.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.1.4 In-Reply-To: <1441372118-5933-1-git-send-email-luis.henriques@canonical.com> References: <1441372118-5933-1-git-send-email-luis.henriques@canonical.com> X-Extended-Stable: 3.16 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 3.16.7-ckt17 -stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: Manfred Spraul commit 3ed1f8a99d70ea1cd1508910eb107d0edcae5009 upstream. sem_lock() did not properly pair memory barriers: !spin_is_locked() and spin_unlock_wait() are both only control barriers. The code needs an acquire barrier, otherwise the cpu might perform read operations before the lock test. As no primitive exists inside and since it seems noone wants another primitive, the code creates a local primitive within ipc/sem.c. With regards to -stable: The change of sem_wait_array() is a bugfix, the change to sem_lock() is a nop (just a preprocessor redefinition to improve the readability). The bugfix is necessary for all kernels that use sem_wait_array() (i.e.: starting from 3.10). Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul Reported-by: Oleg Nesterov Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: Kirill Tkhai Cc: Ingo Molnar Cc: Josh Poimboeuf Cc: Davidlohr Bueso Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques --- ipc/sem.c | 18 ++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/ipc/sem.c b/ipc/sem.c index f64efdd19586..0e6504c9e907 100644 --- a/ipc/sem.c +++ b/ipc/sem.c @@ -253,6 +253,16 @@ static void sem_rcu_free(struct rcu_head *head) } /* + * spin_unlock_wait() and !spin_is_locked() are not memory barriers, they + * are only control barriers. + * The code must pair with spin_unlock(&sem->lock) or + * spin_unlock(&sem_perm.lock), thus just the control barrier is insufficient. + * + * smp_rmb() is sufficient, as writes cannot pass the control barrier. + */ +#define ipc_smp_acquire__after_spin_is_unlocked() smp_rmb() + +/* * Wait until all currently ongoing simple ops have completed. * Caller must own sem_perm.lock. * New simple ops cannot start, because simple ops first check @@ -275,6 +285,7 @@ static void sem_wait_array(struct sem_array *sma) sem = sma->sem_base + i; spin_unlock_wait(&sem->lock); } + ipc_smp_acquire__after_spin_is_unlocked(); } /* @@ -327,13 +338,12 @@ static inline int sem_lock(struct sem_array *sma, struct sembuf *sops, /* Then check that the global lock is free */ if (!spin_is_locked(&sma->sem_perm.lock)) { /* - * The ipc object lock check must be visible on all - * cores before rechecking the complex count. Otherwise - * we can race with another thread that does: + * We need a memory barrier with acquire semantics, + * otherwise we can race with another thread that does: * complex_count++; * spin_unlock(sem_perm.lock); */ - smp_rmb(); + ipc_smp_acquire__after_spin_is_unlocked(); /* * Now repeat the test of complex_count: