The patch titled
Subject: ipc/sem.c: Fix complex_count vs. simple op race
has been added to the -mm tree. Its filename is
ipc-semc-fix-complex_count-vs-simple-op-race.patch
This patch should soon appear at
http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmots/broken-out/ipc-semc-fix-complex_count-vs-simple-op-race.patch
and later at
http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/ipc-semc-fix-complex_count-vs-simple-op-race.patch
Before you just go and hit "reply", please:
a) Consider who else should be cc'ed
b) Prefer to cc a suitable mailing list as well
c) Ideally: find the original patch on the mailing list and do a
reply-to-all to that, adding suitable additional cc's
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
The -mm tree is included into linux-next and is updated
there every 3-4 working days
------------------------------------------------------
From: Manfred Spraul <[email protected]>
Subject: ipc/sem.c: Fix complex_count vs. simple op race
Commit 6d07b68ce16a ("ipc/sem.c: optimize sem_lock()") introduced a race:
sem_lock has a fast path that allows parallel simple operations.
There are two reasons why a simple operation cannot run in parallel:
- a non-simple operations is ongoing (sma->sem_perm.lock held)
- a complex operation is sleeping (sma->complex_count != 0)
As both facts are stored independently, a thread can bypass the current
checks by sleeping in the right positions. See below for more details (or
kernel bugzilla 105651).
The patch fixes that by creating one variable (complex_mode) that tracks
both reasons why parallel operations are not possible.
The patch also updates stale documentation regarding the locking.
With regards to stable kernels:
The patch is required for all kernels that include the commit 6d07b68ce16a
("ipc/sem.c: optimize sem_lock()") (3.10?)
The alternative is to revert the patch that introduced the race.
Background:
Here is the race of the current implementation:
Thread A: (simple op)
- does the first "sma->complex_count == 0" test
Thread B: (complex op)
- does sem_lock(): This includes an array scan. But the scan can't
find Thread A, because Thread A does not own sem->lock yet.
- the thread does the operation, increases complex_count,
drops sem_lock, sleeps
Thread A:
- spin_lock(&sem->lock), spin_is_locked(sma->sem_perm.lock)
- sleeps before the complex_count test
Thread C: (complex op)
- does sem_lock (no array scan, complex_count==1)
- wakes up Thread B.
- decrements complex_count
Thread A:
- does the complex_count test
Bug:
Now both thread A and thread C operate on the same array, without
any synchronization.
Fixes: 6d07b68ce16a ("ipc/sem.c: optimize sem_lock()")
Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul <[email protected]>
Reported-by: <[email protected]>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
---
include/linux/sem.h | 1
ipc/sem.c | 124 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
2 files changed, 72 insertions(+), 53 deletions(-)
diff -puN include/linux/sem.h~ipc-semc-fix-complex_count-vs-simple-op-race
include/linux/sem.h
--- a/include/linux/sem.h~ipc-semc-fix-complex_count-vs-simple-op-race
+++ a/include/linux/sem.h
@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ struct sem_array {
struct list_head list_id; /* undo requests on this array
*/
int sem_nsems; /* no. of semaphores in array */
int complex_count; /* pending complex operations */
+ bool complex_mode; /* no parallel simple ops */
};
#ifdef CONFIG_SYSVIPC
diff -puN ipc/sem.c~ipc-semc-fix-complex_count-vs-simple-op-race ipc/sem.c
--- a/ipc/sem.c~ipc-semc-fix-complex_count-vs-simple-op-race
+++ a/ipc/sem.c
@@ -155,14 +155,21 @@ static int sysvipc_sem_proc_show(struct
/*
* Locking:
+ * a) global sem_lock() for read/write
* sem_undo.id_next,
* sem_array.complex_count,
- * sem_array.pending{_alter,_cont},
- * sem_array.sem_undo: global sem_lock() for read/write
- * sem_undo.proc_next: only "current" is allowed to read/write that field.
+ * sem_array.complex_mode
+ * sem_array.pending{_alter,_const},
+ * sem_array.sem_undo
*
+ * b) global or semaphore sem_lock() for read/write:
* sem_array.sem_base[i].pending_{const,alter}:
- * global or semaphore sem_lock() for read/write
+ * sem_array.complex_mode (for read)
+ *
+ * c) special:
+ * sem_undo_list.list_proc:
+ * * undo_list->lock for write
+ * * rcu for read
*/
#define sc_semmsl sem_ctls[0]
@@ -263,23 +270,25 @@ static void sem_rcu_free(struct rcu_head
#define ipc_smp_acquire__after_spin_is_unlocked() smp_rmb()
/*
- * Wait until all currently ongoing simple ops have completed.
+ * Enter the mode suitable for non-simple operations:
* Caller must own sem_perm.lock.
- * New simple ops cannot start, because simple ops first check
- * that sem_perm.lock is free.
- * that a) sem_perm.lock is free and b) complex_count is 0.
*/
-static void sem_wait_array(struct sem_array *sma)
+static void complexmode_enter(struct sem_array *sma)
{
int i;
struct sem *sem;
- if (sma->complex_count) {
- /* The thread that increased sma->complex_count waited on
- * all sem->lock locks. Thus we don't need to wait again.
- */
+ if (sma->complex_mode) {
+ /* We are already in complex_mode. Nothing to do */
return;
}
+ WRITE_ONCE(sma->complex_mode, true);
+
+ /* We need a full barrier:
+ * The write to complex_mode must be visible
+ * before we read the first sem->lock spinlock state.
+ */
+ smp_mb();
for (i = 0; i < sma->sem_nsems; i++) {
sem = sma->sem_base + i;
@@ -289,6 +298,29 @@ static void sem_wait_array(struct sem_ar
}
/*
+ * Try to leave the mode that disallows simple operations:
+ * Caller must own sem_perm.lock.
+ */
+static void complexmode_tryleave(struct sem_array *sma)
+{
+ if (sma->complex_count) {
+ /* Complex ops are sleeping.
+ * We must stay in complex mode
+ */
+ return;
+ }
+ /*
+ * Immediately after setting complex_mode to false,
+ * a simple op can start. Thus: all memory writes
+ * performed by the current operation must be visible
+ * before we set complex_mode to false.
+ */
+ smp_wmb();
+
+ WRITE_ONCE(sma->complex_mode, false);
+}
+
+/*
* If the request contains only one semaphore operation, and there are
* no complex transactions pending, lock only the semaphore involved.
* Otherwise, lock the entire semaphore array, since we either have
@@ -304,56 +336,38 @@ static inline int sem_lock(struct sem_ar
/* Complex operation - acquire a full lock */
ipc_lock_object(&sma->sem_perm);
- /* And wait until all simple ops that are processed
- * right now have dropped their locks.
- */
- sem_wait_array(sma);
+ /* Prevent parallel simple ops */
+ complexmode_enter(sma);
return -1;
}
/*
* Only one semaphore affected - try to optimize locking.
- * The rules are:
- * - optimized locking is possible if no complex operation
- * is either enqueued or processed right now.
- * - The test for enqueued complex ops is simple:
- * sma->complex_count != 0
- * - Testing for complex ops that are processed right now is
- * a bit more difficult. Complex ops acquire the full lock
- * and first wait that the running simple ops have completed.
- * (see above)
- * Thus: If we own a simple lock and the global lock is free
- * and complex_count is now 0, then it will stay 0 and
- * thus just locking sem->lock is sufficient.
+ * Optimized locking is possible if no complex operation
+ * is either enqueued or processed right now.
+ *
+ * Both facts are tracked by complex_mode.
*/
sem = sma->sem_base + sops->sem_num;
- if (sma->complex_count == 0) {
+ /*
+ * Initial check for complex_mode. Just an optimization,
+ * no locking.
+ */
+ if (!READ_ONCE(sma->complex_mode)) {
/*
* It appears that no complex operation is around.
* Acquire the per-semaphore lock.
*/
spin_lock(&sem->lock);
- /* Then check that the global lock is free */
- if (!spin_is_locked(&sma->sem_perm.lock)) {
- /*
- * We need a memory barrier with acquire semantics,
- * otherwise we can race with another thread that does:
- * complex_count++;
- * spin_unlock(sem_perm.lock);
- */
- ipc_smp_acquire__after_spin_is_unlocked();
-
- /*
- * Now repeat the test of complex_count:
- * It can't change anymore until we drop sem->lock.
- * Thus: if is now 0, then it will stay 0.
- */
- if (sma->complex_count == 0) {
- /* fast path successful! */
- return sops->sem_num;
- }
+ /* Now repeat the test for complex_mode.
+ * A memory barrier is provided by the spin_lock()
+ * above.
+ */
+ if (!READ_ONCE(sma->complex_mode)) {
+ /* fast path successful! */
+ return sops->sem_num;
}
spin_unlock(&sem->lock);
}
@@ -373,7 +387,7 @@ static inline int sem_lock(struct sem_ar
/* Not a false alarm, thus complete the sequence for a
* full lock.
*/
- sem_wait_array(sma);
+ complexmode_enter(sma);
return -1;
}
}
@@ -382,6 +396,7 @@ static inline void sem_unlock(struct sem
{
if (locknum == -1) {
unmerge_queues(sma);
+ complexmode_tryleave(sma);
ipc_unlock_object(&sma->sem_perm);
} else {
struct sem *sem = sma->sem_base + locknum;
@@ -533,6 +548,7 @@ static int newary(struct ipc_namespace *
}
sma->complex_count = 0;
+ sma->complex_mode = true; /* dropped by sem_unlock below */
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&sma->pending_alter);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&sma->pending_const);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&sma->list_id);
@@ -2186,10 +2202,10 @@ static int sysvipc_sem_proc_show(struct
/*
* 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.
+ * In order to stay compatible with sem_lock(), we must
+ * enter / leave complex_mode.
*/
- sem_wait_array(sma);
+ complexmode_enter(sma);
sem_otime = get_semotime(sma);
@@ -2206,6 +2222,8 @@ static int sysvipc_sem_proc_show(struct
sem_otime,
sma->sem_ctime);
+ complexmode_tryleave(sma);
+
return 0;
}
#endif
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from [email protected] are
ipc-semc-fix-complex_count-vs-simple-op-race.patch
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
