From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: peterz@infradead.org (Peter Zijlstra)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 16:58:39 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] arm64: spinlock: serialise spin_unlock_wait against
 concurrent lockers
In-Reply-To: <1448624646-15863-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com>
References: <1448624646-15863-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com>
Message-ID: <20151130155839.GK17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:44:06AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> Boqun Feng reported a rather nasty ordering issue with spin_unlock_wait
> on architectures implementing spin_lock with LL/SC sequences and acquire
> semantics:
> 
>  | CPU 1                   CPU 2                     CPU 3
>  | ==================      ====================      ==============
>  |                                                   spin_unlock(&lock);
>  |                         spin_lock(&lock):
>  |                           r1 = *lock; // r1 == 0;
>  |                         o = READ_ONCE(object); // reordered here
>  | object = NULL;
>  | smp_mb();
>  | spin_unlock_wait(&lock);
>  |                           *lock = 1;
>  | smp_mb();
>  | o->dead = true;
>  |                         if (o) // true
>  |                           BUG_ON(o->dead); // true!!
> 
> The crux of the problem is that spin_unlock_wait(&lock) can return on
> CPU 1 whilst CPU 2 is in the process of taking the lock. This can be
> resolved by upgrading spin_unlock_wait to a LOCK operation, forcing it
> to serialise against a concurrent locker and giving it acquire semantics
> in the process (although it is not at all clear whether this is needed -
> different callers seem to assume different things about the barrier
> semantics and architectures are similarly disjoint in their
> implementations of the macro).

Do we want to go do a note with spin_unlock_wait() in
include/linux/spinlock.h warning about these subtle issues for the next
arch that thinks this is a 'trivial' thing to implement?