Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:55:38 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, George Spelvin <linux@horizon.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ipc/msg: Implement lockless pipelined wakeups
Message-ID: <20151104115538.GK17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1446563009-9076-1-git-send-email-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1446563009-9076-1-git-send-email-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1147
Lines: 34

On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 04:03:29PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:

> -	struct msg_msg		*volatile r_msg;
> +	struct msg_msg		*r_msg;

> +				wake_q_add(wake_q, msr->r_tsk);
>  				msr->r_msg = msg;
> +				/*
> +				 * Rely on the implicit cmpxchg barrier from
> +				 * wake_q_add such that we can ensure that

Davidlohr, didn't you want to make that cmpxchg_relaxed() or
cmpxchg_release() ?

> +				 * updating msr->r_msg is the last write
> +				 * operation: As once set, the receiver can
> +				 * continue, and if we don't have the reference

Which seems to suggest you want to at least make that WRITE_ONCE()

> +				 * count from the wake_q, yet, at that point we
> +				 * can later have a use-after-free condition and
> +				 * bogus wakeup.
> +				 */

And I agree with DAvidlohr that the comment is placed oddly, one would
expect it between wake_q_add() and the store in question.


--
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/