All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To: stable@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Subject: [PATCH STABLE v4.9 02/10] locking/qspinlock: Ensure node is initialised before updating prev->next
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 15:09:17 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181213140925.6179-3-bigeasy@linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181213140925.6179-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de>

From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

commit 95bcade33a8af38755c9b0636e36a36ad3789fe6 upstream.

When a locker ends up queuing on the qspinlock locking slowpath, we
initialise the relevant mcs node and publish it indirectly by updating
the tail portion of the lock word using xchg_tail. If we find that there
was a pre-existing locker in the queue, we subsequently update their
->next field to point at our node so that we are notified when it's our
turn to take the lock.

This can be roughly illustrated as follows:

  /* Initialise the fields in node and encode a pointer to node in tail */
  tail = initialise_node(node);

  /*
   * Exchange tail into the lockword using an atomic read-modify-write
   * operation with release semantics
   */
  old = xchg_tail(lock, tail);

  /* If there was a pre-existing waiter ... */
  if (old & _Q_TAIL_MASK) {
	prev = decode_tail(old);
	smp_read_barrier_depends();

	/* ... then update their ->next field to point to node.
	WRITE_ONCE(prev->next, node);
  }

The conditional update of prev->next therefore relies on the address
dependency from the result of xchg_tail ensuring order against the
prior initialisation of node. However, since the release semantics of
the xchg_tail operation apply only to the write portion of the RmW,
then this ordering is not guaranteed and it is possible for the CPU
to return old before the writes to node have been published, consequently
allowing us to point prev->next to an uninitialised node.

This patch fixes the problem by making the update of prev->next a RELEASE
operation, which also removes the reliance on dependency ordering.

Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1518528177-19169-2-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
---
 kernel/locking/qspinlock.c | 15 ++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
index 8710fbe8d26c0..6fce84401dba1 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
@@ -532,14 +532,15 @@ void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
 	 */
 	if (old & _Q_TAIL_MASK) {
 		prev = decode_tail(old);
-		/*
-		 * The above xchg_tail() is also a load of @lock which
-		 * generates, through decode_tail(), a pointer.  The address
-		 * dependency matches the RELEASE of xchg_tail() such that
-		 * the subsequent access to @prev happens after.
-		 */
 
-		WRITE_ONCE(prev->next, node);
+		/*
+		 * We must ensure that the stores to @node are observed before
+		 * the write to prev->next. The address dependency from
+		 * xchg_tail is not sufficient to ensure this because the read
+		 * component of xchg_tail is unordered with respect to the
+		 * initialisation of @node.
+		 */
+		smp_store_release(&prev->next, node);
 
 		pv_wait_node(node, prev);
 		arch_mcs_spin_lock_contended(&node->locked);
-- 
2.20.0

  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-12-13 14:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-12-13 14:09 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-12-13 14:09 ` [PATCH STABLE v4.9 01/10] locking: Remove smp_read_barrier_depends() from queued_spin_lock_slowpath() Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-12-13 14:09 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior [this message]
2018-12-13 14:09 ` [PATCH STABLE v4.9 03/10] locking/qspinlock: Bound spinning on pending->locked transition in slowpath Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-12-13 14:09 ` [PATCH STABLE v4.9 04/10] locking/qspinlock: Merge 'struct __qspinlock' into 'struct qspinlock' Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-12-13 14:09 ` [PATCH STABLE v4.9 05/10] locking/qspinlock: Remove unbounded cmpxchg() loop from locking slowpath Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-12-13 14:09 ` [PATCH STABLE v4.9 06/10] locking/qspinlock: Remove duplicate clear_pending() function from PV code Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-12-13 14:09 ` [PATCH STABLE v4.9 07/10] locking/qspinlock: Kill cmpxchg() loop when claiming lock from head of queue Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-12-13 14:09 ` [PATCH STABLE v4.9 08/10] locking/qspinlock: Re-order code Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-12-13 14:09 ` [PATCH STABLE v4.9 09/10] locking/qspinlock/x86: Increase _Q_PENDING_LOOPS upper bound Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-12-13 14:09 ` [PATCH STABLE v4.9 10/10] locking/qspinlock, x86: Provide liveness guarantee Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-12-13 14:33 ` your mail Sasha Levin
2018-12-13 14:39   ` Sasha Levin
2018-12-13 15:13     ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-12-13 14:53   ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-12-14  7:11 ` Greg KH
2018-12-18 22:10 [PATCH STABLE v4.9 00/10] Backport for "cache line starvation on x86 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-12-18 22:10 ` [PATCH STABLE v4.9 02/10] locking/qspinlock: Ensure node is initialised before updating prev->next Sebastian Andrzej Siewior

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=20181213140925.6179-3-bigeasy@linutronix.de \
    --to=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
    --cc=daniel.wagner@siemens.com \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.