The proc interface is not aware of sem_lock(), it calls
ipc_lock_object() directly.
This means that simple semop() operations can run in parallel with the
proc interface.
Right now, this is uncritical, because the implementation doesn't
do anything that requires a proper synchronization.
But it is dangerous and therefore should be fixed.
Andrew:
- Could you include the patch in -mm and push it towards Linus?
- The patch depends on ipc-semc-fix-race-in-sem_lock.patch
Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul <manf...@colorfullife.com>
---
ipc/sem.c | 8 ++++++++
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
diff --git a/ipc/sem.c b/ipc/sem.c
index 4a92c04..e5d9bb8 100644
--- a/ipc/sem.c
+++ b/ipc/sem.c
@@ -2095,6 +2095,14 @@ static int sysvipc_sem_proc_show(struct seq_file *s,
void *it)
struct sem_array *sma = it;
time_t sem_otime;
+ /*
+ * The proc interface isn't aware of sem_lock(), it calls
+ * ipc_lock_object() directly (in sysvipc_find_ipc).
+ * In order to stay compatible with sem_lock(), we must wait until
+ * all simple semop() calls have left their critical regions.
+ */
+ sem_wait_array(sma);
+
sem_otime = get_semotime(sma);
return seq_printf(s,
--
1.8.3.1
--
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/
