Re: [Patch v4] rwsem: fix rwsem_is_locked() bugs

[David Howells]

Amerigo Wang <amwang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> rwsem_is_locked() tests ->activity without locks, so we should always
> keep ->activity consistent. However, the code in __rwsem_do_wake()
> breaks this rule, it updates ->activity after _all_ readers waken up,
> this may give some reader a wrong ->activity value, thus cause
> rwsem_is_locked() behaves wrong.
> 
> Quote from Andrew:
> 
> "
> - we have one or more processes sleeping in down_read(), waiting for access.
> 
> - we wake one or more processes up without altering ->activity
> 
> - they start to run and they do rwsem_is_locked().  This incorrectly
>   returns "false", because the waker process is still crunching away in
>   __rwsem_do_wake().
> 
> - the waker now alters ->activity, but it was too late.
> "
> 
> So we need get a spinlock to protect this. And rwsem_is_locked()
> should not block, thus we use spin_trylock.
> 
> Reported-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@xxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Ben Woodard <bwoodard@xxxxxxxx>
> Cc: David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: WANG Cong <amwang@xxxxxxxxxx>

I'd say the comment in __rwsem_do_wake() is unnecessary, but other than
that...

Acked-by: David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/