Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 30 Jul 2018 15:08:37 -0700
From:   Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To:     Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] ipc/sem: prevent queue.status tearing in semop
Message-ID: <20180730220837.iojrnvdb3lippfj7@linux-r8p5>
References: <20180717052654.676-1-dave@stgolabs.net>
 <7909e12b-6dd7-e28a-010c-003545a8e4b5@colorfullife.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7909e12b-6dd7-e28a-010c-003545a8e4b5@colorfullife.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170912 (1.9.0)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 18 Jul 2018, Manfred Spraul wrote:

>sma->use_global_lock is sometimes used with smp_load_acquire(), 
>sometimes without.
>So far, I assumed that this is safe.
>
>The same applies for nf_conntrack_locks_all, in nf_conntrack_all_lock()

So the netfilter code is safe wrt tearing as _all_ accesses are done with
barriers and/or under spinlock.

However, this isn't always the case for sma->use_global_lock, albeit harmless.

- sem_lock(): It doesn't matter if we get the first check right as we
end up rechecking with locks held.

	/*
	 * Initial check for use_global_lock. Just an optimization,
	 * no locking, no memory barrier.
	 */
	if (!sma->use_global_lock) {

- complexmode_enter/tryleave() are called under the ipc object lock, so that
is safe:

spin_lock()
complexmode_enter()
...
complexmode_tryleave()
spin_unlock()

- newary(): Init, no concurrency, of course.

So while I also like READ/WRITE_ONCE() calls in that it helps document the
code, I don't think we need/want want this. There's a comment there in the
first place.

Thanks,
Davidlohr