Message-ID: <54E311EB.6070602@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:33:23 +0530
From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Vrabel <dvrabel@cantab.net>
CC: tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, konrad.wilk@oracle.com,
        pbonzini@redhat.com, waiman.long@hp.com, jeremy@goop.org,
        ak@linux.intel.com, a.ryabinin@samsung.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        borntraeger@de.ibm.com, jasowang@redhat.com, x86@kernel.org,
        oleg@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        paul.gortmaker@windriver.com, dave@stgolabs.net,
        xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, davej@redhat.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, sasha.levin@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH V5] x86 spinlock: Fix memory corruption on
 completing completions
References: <1423979744-18320-1-git-send-email-raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150215173043.GA7471@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <54E21F10.1040402@cantab.net>
In-Reply-To: <54E21F10.1040402@cantab.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2413
Lines: 68

On 02/16/2015 10:17 PM, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 15/02/15 17:30, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>> --- a/arch/x86/xen/spinlock.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/spinlock.c
>> @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ static u8 zero_stats;
>>   static inline void check_zero(void)
>>   {
>>   	u8 ret;
>> -	u8 old = ACCESS_ONCE(zero_stats);
>> +	u8 old = READ_ONCE(zero_stats);
>>   	if (unlikely(old)) {
>>   		ret = cmpxchg(&zero_stats, old, 0);
>>   		/* This ensures only one fellow resets the stat */
>> @@ -112,6 +112,7 @@ __visible void xen_lock_spinning(struct arch_spinlock *lock, __ticket_t want)
>>   	struct xen_lock_waiting *w = this_cpu_ptr(&lock_waiting);
>>   	int cpu = smp_processor_id();
>>   	u64 start;
>> +	__ticket_t head;
>>   	unsigned long flags;
>>
>>   	/* If kicker interrupts not initialized yet, just spin */
>> @@ -159,11 +160,15 @@ __visible void xen_lock_spinning(struct arch_spinlock *lock, __ticket_t want)
>>   	 */
>>   	__ticket_enter_slowpath(lock);
>>
>> +	/* make sure enter_slowpath, which is atomic does not cross the read */
>> +	smp_mb__after_atomic();
>> +
>>   	/*
>>   	 * check again make sure it didn't become free while
>>   	 * we weren't looking
>>   	 */
>> -	if (ACCESS_ONCE(lock->tickets.head) == want) {
>> +	head = READ_ONCE(lock->tickets.head);
>> +	if (__tickets_equal(head, want)) {
>>   		add_stats(TAKEN_SLOW_PICKUP, 1);
>>   		goto out;
>>   	}
>> @@ -204,8 +209,8 @@ static void xen_unlock_kick(struct arch_spinlock *lock, __ticket_t next)
>>   		const struct xen_lock_waiting *w = &per_cpu(lock_waiting, cpu);
>>
>>   		/* Make sure we read lock before want */
>> -		if (ACCESS_ONCE(w->lock) == lock &&
>> -		    ACCESS_ONCE(w->want) == next) {
>> +		if (READ_ONCE(w->lock) == lock &&
>> +		    READ_ONCE(w->want) == next) {
>>   			add_stats(RELEASED_SLOW_KICKED, 1);
>>   			xen_send_IPI_one(cpu, XEN_SPIN_UNLOCK_VECTOR);
>>   			break;
>
> Acked-by: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>
>
> Although some of the ACCESS_ONCE to READ_ONCE changes are cosmetic and
> are perhaps best left out of a patch destined for stable.
>

Thanks.
Yes, will send out a separate patch for -stable without READ_ONCE 
changes once this patches goes in.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/