[RT,19/25] userfaultfd: Use a seqlock instead of seqcount
diff mbox series

Message ID 889f5b989b28eb7b29f21092432948cd12d97c48.1582320278.git.zanussi@kernel.org
State New
Headers show
Series
  • Linux v4.14.170-rt75-rc1
Related show

Commit Message

Tom Zanussi Feb. 21, 2020, 9:24 p.m. UTC
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>

v4.14.170-rt75-rc1 stable review patch.
If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

-----------


[ Upstream commit dc952a564d02997330654be9628bbe97ba2a05d3 ]

On RT write_seqcount_begin() disables preemption which leads to warning
in add_wait_queue() while the spinlock_t is acquired.
The waitqueue can't be converted to swait_queue because
userfaultfd_wake_function() is used as a custom wake function.

Use seqlock instead seqcount to avoid the preempt_disable() section
during add_wait_queue().

Cc: stable-rt@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Tom Zanussi <zanussi@kernel.org>
---
 fs/userfaultfd.c | 12 ++++++------
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

Comments

Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Feb. 24, 2020, 9:03 a.m. UTC | #1
On 2020-02-21 15:24:47 [-0600], zanussi@kernel.org wrote:
> From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
> 
> v4.14.170-rt75-rc1 stable review patch.
> If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

This is required but it is not part of the next "higher" tree
(v4.19-RT). Which means if someone moves from v4.14-RT to the next tree
(v4.19-RT in this case) that someone would have the bug again.

Could you please wait with such patches or did the I miss the v4.19-RT
tree with this change?

Sebastian
Tom Zanussi Feb. 24, 2020, 3:14 p.m. UTC | #2
On Mon, 2020-02-24 at 10:03 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2020-02-21 15:24:47 [-0600], zanussi@kernel.org wrote:
> > From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
> > 
> > v4.14.170-rt75-rc1 stable review patch.
> > If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> 
> This is required but it is not part of the next "higher" tree
> (v4.19-RT). Which means if someone moves from v4.14-RT to the next
> tree
> (v4.19-RT in this case) that someone would have the bug again.
> 
> Could you please wait with such patches or did the I miss the v4.19-
> RT
> tree with this change?
> 

No, you didn't miss the 4.19 tree with this change - I got a little
ahead of 4.19 this time.  Will drop all the patches ahead of 4.19.

Thanks,

Tom

> Sebastian
Steven Rostedt Feb. 24, 2020, 4:17 p.m. UTC | #3
On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 10:03:17 +0100
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> wrote:

> On 2020-02-21 15:24:47 [-0600], zanussi@kernel.org wrote:
> > From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
> > 
> > v4.14.170-rt75-rc1 stable review patch.
> > If anyone has any objections, please let me know.  
> 
> This is required but it is not part of the next "higher" tree
> (v4.19-RT). Which means if someone moves from v4.14-RT to the next tree
> (v4.19-RT in this case) that someone would have the bug again.
> 
> Could you please wait with such patches or did the I miss the v4.19-RT
> tree with this change?
> 

No, I'm just behind in backporting patches.

We need to work on synchronizing better what gets backported. :-/

-- Steve

Patch
diff mbox series

diff --git a/fs/userfaultfd.c b/fs/userfaultfd.c
index e2b2196fd942..71886a8e8f71 100644
--- a/fs/userfaultfd.c
+++ b/fs/userfaultfd.c
@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@  struct userfaultfd_ctx {
 	/* waitqueue head for events */
 	wait_queue_head_t event_wqh;
 	/* a refile sequence protected by fault_pending_wqh lock */
-	struct seqcount refile_seq;
+	seqlock_t refile_seq;
 	/* pseudo fd refcounting */
 	atomic_t refcount;
 	/* userfaultfd syscall flags */
@@ -1047,7 +1047,7 @@  static ssize_t userfaultfd_ctx_read(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx, int no_wait,
 			 * waitqueue could become empty if this is the
 			 * only userfault.
 			 */
-			write_seqcount_begin(&ctx->refile_seq);
+			write_seqlock(&ctx->refile_seq);
 
 			/*
 			 * The fault_pending_wqh.lock prevents the uwq
@@ -1073,7 +1073,7 @@  static ssize_t userfaultfd_ctx_read(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx, int no_wait,
 			list_del(&uwq->wq.entry);
 			__add_wait_queue(&ctx->fault_wqh, &uwq->wq);
 
-			write_seqcount_end(&ctx->refile_seq);
+			write_sequnlock(&ctx->refile_seq);
 
 			/* careful to always initialize msg if ret == 0 */
 			*msg = uwq->msg;
@@ -1246,11 +1246,11 @@  static __always_inline void wake_userfault(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx,
 	 * sure we've userfaults to wake.
 	 */
 	do {
-		seq = read_seqcount_begin(&ctx->refile_seq);
+		seq = read_seqbegin(&ctx->refile_seq);
 		need_wakeup = waitqueue_active(&ctx->fault_pending_wqh) ||
 			waitqueue_active(&ctx->fault_wqh);
 		cond_resched();
-	} while (read_seqcount_retry(&ctx->refile_seq, seq));
+	} while (read_seqretry(&ctx->refile_seq, seq));
 	if (need_wakeup)
 		__wake_userfault(ctx, range);
 }
@@ -1915,7 +1915,7 @@  static void init_once_userfaultfd_ctx(void *mem)
 	init_waitqueue_head(&ctx->fault_wqh);
 	init_waitqueue_head(&ctx->event_wqh);
 	init_waitqueue_head(&ctx->fd_wqh);
-	seqcount_init(&ctx->refile_seq);
+	seqlock_init(&ctx->refile_seq);
 }
 
 /**