On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 02:52:26PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> When manipulating just one semaphore with semop, sem_lock only takes that
> single semaphore's lock. This creates a problem during initialization of
> the semaphore array, when the data structures used by sem_lock have not
> been set up yet. The sma->lock is already held by newary, and we just
> have to make sure everything else waits on that lock during initialization.
>
> Luckily it is easy to make sem_lock wait on the sma->lock, by pretending
> there is a complex operation in progress while the sma is being initialized.
>
> The newary function already zeroes sma->complex_count before unlocking
> the sma->lock.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <r...@redhat.com>
> ---
> ipc/sem.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/ipc/sem.c b/ipc/sem.c
> index 454f6c6..1823160 100644
> --- a/ipc/sem.c
> +++ b/ipc/sem.c
> @@ -507,6 +507,9 @@ static int newary(struct ipc_namespace *ns, struct
> ipc_params *params)
> return retval;
> }
>
> + /* Ensures sem_lock waits on &sma->lock until sma is ready. */
> + sma->complex_count = 1;
> +
> id = ipc_addid(&sem_ids(ns), &sma->sem_perm, ns->sc_semmni);
> if (id < 0) {
> ipc_rcu_putref(sma, sem_rcu_free);
Acked-by: Rafael Aquini <aqu...@redhat.com>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
