diff options
author | Prateek Sood <prsood@codeaurora.org> | 2017-07-14 19:17:56 +0530 |
---|---|---|
committer | Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> | 2017-08-10 12:28:54 +0200 |
commit | 50972fe78f24f1cd0b9d7bbf1f87d2be9e4f412e (patch) | |
tree | ed89ba05db5245b47e89fe443ad6f5f21694d9d5 | |
parent | 9d664c0aec3bfdb77fcf7de61cfe1febbecdd389 (diff) | |
download | linux-50972fe78f24f1cd0b9d7bbf1f87d2be9e4f412e.tar.gz linux-50972fe78f24f1cd0b9d7bbf1f87d2be9e4f412e.tar.bz2 linux-50972fe78f24f1cd0b9d7bbf1f87d2be9e4f412e.zip |
locking/osq_lock: Fix osq_lock queue corruption
Fix ordering of link creation between node->prev and prev->next in
osq_lock(). A case in which the status of optimistic spin queue is
CPU6->CPU2 in which CPU6 has acquired the lock.
tail
v
,-. <- ,-.
|6| |2|
`-' -> `-'
At this point if CPU0 comes in to acquire osq_lock, it will update the
tail count.
CPU2 CPU0
----------------------------------
tail
v
,-. <- ,-. ,-.
|6| |2| |0|
`-' -> `-' `-'
After tail count update if CPU2 starts to unqueue itself from
optimistic spin queue, it will find an updated tail count with CPU0 and
update CPU2 node->next to NULL in osq_wait_next().
unqueue-A
tail
v
,-. <- ,-. ,-.
|6| |2| |0|
`-' `-' `-'
unqueue-B
->tail != curr && !node->next
If reordering of following stores happen then prev->next where prev
being CPU2 would be updated to point to CPU0 node:
tail
v
,-. <- ,-. ,-.
|6| |2| |0|
`-' `-' -> `-'
osq_wait_next()
node->next <- 0
xchg(node->next, NULL)
tail
v
,-. <- ,-. ,-.
|6| |2| |0|
`-' `-' `-'
unqueue-C
At this point if next instruction
WRITE_ONCE(next->prev, prev);
in CPU2 path is committed before the update of CPU0 node->prev = prev then
CPU0 node->prev will point to CPU6 node.
tail
v----------. v
,-. <- ,-. ,-.
|6| |2| |0|
`-' `-' `-'
`----------^
At this point if CPU0 path's node->prev = prev is committed resulting
in change of CPU0 prev back to CPU2 node. CPU2 node->next is NULL
currently,
tail
v
,-. <- ,-. <- ,-.
|6| |2| |0|
`-' `-' `-'
`----------^
so if CPU0 gets into unqueue path of osq_lock it will keep spinning
in infinite loop as condition prev->next == node will never be true.
Signed-off-by: Prateek Sood <prsood@codeaurora.org>
[ Added pictures, rewrote comments. ]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: sramana@codeaurora.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1500040076-27626-1-git-send-email-prsood@codeaurora.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
-rw-r--r-- | kernel/locking/osq_lock.c | 13 |
1 files changed, 13 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c index a3167941093b..a74ee6abd039 100644 --- a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c +++ b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c @@ -109,6 +109,19 @@ bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock) prev = decode_cpu(old); node->prev = prev; + + /* + * osq_lock() unqueue + * + * node->prev = prev osq_wait_next() + * WMB MB + * prev->next = node next->prev = prev // unqueue-C + * + * Here 'node->prev' and 'next->prev' are the same variable and we need + * to ensure these stores happen in-order to avoid corrupting the list. + */ + smp_wmb(); + WRITE_ONCE(prev->next, node); /* |