[PATCH 0/2] ipc/sem.c: sem_lock fixes

Hi Andrew, Hi Peter, Hi Davidlohr, New idea for ipc/sem: The ACQUIRE from spin_lock() will continue to apply only for the load, not for the store. Thus: If we don't want to add arch dependencies into ipc/sem, the only safe option is to use spin_lock()/spin_unlock() instead of spin_unlock_wait().

Re: [PATCH 0/2] ipc/sem.c: sem_lock fixes

Hi Andrew, On 07/14/2016 12:05 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 07:06:50 +0200 Manfred Spraul wrote: Hi Andrew, Hi Peter, next version of the sem_lock() fixes: The patches are again vs. tip. Patch 1 is ready for merging, Patch 2 is for review. - Patch 1 is the patch as in -nex

Re: [PATCH 0/2] ipc/sem.c: sem_lock fixes

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 07:06:50 +0200 Manfred Spraul wrote: > Hi Andrew, Hi Peter, > > next version of the sem_lock() fixes: > The patches are again vs. tip. > > Patch 1 is ready for merging, Patch 2 is for review. > > - Patch 1 is the patch as in -next since January > It fixes the race that w

[PATCH 0/2] ipc/sem.c: sem_lock fixes

Hi Andrew, Hi Peter, next version of the sem_lock() fixes: The patches are again vs. tip. Patch 1 is ready for merging, Patch 2 is for review. - Patch 1 is the patch as in -next since January It fixes the race that was found by Felix. - Patch 2 removes the memory barriers that are part of the

[PATCH 0/2] ipc/sem.c: sem_lock fixes

Hi Andrew, Hi Peter, next version of the sem_lock() fixes / improvement: The patches are now vs. tip. Patch 1 is ready for merging, patch 2 is new and for discussion. Patch 1 fixes the race that was found by Felix. It also adds smp_mb() to fully synchronize WRITE_ONCE(status, 1);