blob: f09ad2b7b792af5a132aa60d55076b2715e73467 [file] [log] [blame]
From b82ab65560f7f21371d90f94d51b2e535574adeb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:35:33 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] swait: Add smp_mb() after setting h->list
The raw_spin_unlock() is not a full memory barrier. It only keeps
things from leaking past it, but does not prevent leaks from entering
the critical section. That is:
p = 1;
raw_spin_lock();
[...]
raw_spin_unlock();
y = x
Can turn into:
p = 1;
raw_spin_lock();
load x
store p = 1
raw_spin_unlock();
y = x
This means that the condition check in __swait_event() (and friends)
can be seen before the h->list is set.
raw_spin_lock();
load condition;
store h->list;
raw_spin_unlock();
And the other CPU can see h->list as empty, and this CPU see condition
as not set, and possibly miss the wake up.
To prevent this from happening, add an mb() after setting the h->list.
Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
---
kernel/wait-simple.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
--- a/kernel/wait-simple.c
+++ b/kernel/wait-simple.c
@@ -16,6 +16,8 @@
static inline void __swait_enqueue(struct swait_head *head, struct swaiter *w)
{
list_add(&w->node, &head->list);
+ /* We can't let the condition leak before the setting of head */
+ smp_mb();
}
/* Removes w from head->list. Must be called with head->lock locked. */