From: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.ker...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 12:27:33 -0800
> Al Viro mentioned that there is probably a race condition
> lurking in accesses of sk_tstamp on 32-bit machines.
>
> sock->sk_tstamp is of type ktime_t which is always an s64.
> On a 32 bit architecture, we might run into situations of
> unsafe access as the access to the field becomes non atomic.
>
> Use seqlocks for synchronization.
> This allows us to avoid using spinlocks for readers as
> readers do not need mutual exclusion.
>
> Another approach to solve this is to require sk_lock for all
> modifications of the timestamps. The current approach allows
> for timestamps to have their own lock: sk_tstamp_lock.
> This allows for the patch to not compete with already
> existing critical sections, and side effects are limited
> to the paths in the patch.
>
> The addition of the new field maintains the data locality
> optimizations from
> commit 9115e8cd2a0c ("net: reorganize struct sock for better data
> locality")
>
> Note that all the instances of the sk_tstamp accesses
> are either through the ioctl or the syscall recvmsg.
>
> Signed-off-by: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.ker...@gmail.com>
Since, regardless of whether this is the final approach we will
take, it seems that sunrpc needs to be added to this patch.
So I'm definitely waiting for a new version.
Thanks.
_______________________________________________
Y2038 mailing list
Y2038@lists.linaro.org
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/y2038
