From: Willy Tarreau <willy.lkml@free.fr>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [BUG] 2.2.1[78] : RTNETLINK lock not properly locking ?
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 10:39:03 +0100 (MET) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <974885943.3a1b9437847da@imp.free.fr> (raw)
Hello !
while I was searching how to implement an rtnl_lock() in the bonding code,
I discovered that the rtnl_shlock() function in 2.2.1[78] could misbehave if
CONFIG_RTNETLINK is not set :
- it will nearly never allow concurrent accesses (seems to be what was
intented when it was written)
- it will not always prevent concurrent accesses, which is weird because
rtnl_lock() only relies on rtnl_shlock() (and exlock, which is empty) to
protect sensible areas
The first case is trivial : one at a time.
(code taken from include/linux/rtnetlink.h, line 639)
while (atomic_read(&rtnl_rlockct))
sleep_on(&rtnl_wait);
atomic_inc(&rtnl_rlockct);
The second case isn't trivial, so I will quote some points in the code :
[rtnl_shlock]
(1) ---------
while (atomic_read(&rtnl_rlockct))
(2) ---------
sleep_on(&rtnl_wait);
(3) ---------
atomic_inc(&rtnl_rlockct);
(4) ---------
[rtnl_shunlock]
(5) ---------
if (atomic_dec_and_test(&rtnl_rlockct))
(6) ---------
wake_up(&rtnl_wait);
(7) ---------
Consider 3 concurrent threads A, B and C.
- First, A needs the lock. Noone has it. It enters (1), then (3), sets the
rtnl_rlockct to 1 and exits at (4).
- now B comes in (1). The lock is already set by A, so B goes to (2) and
sleeps.
- A unlocks. It goes to (5), then (6)
- at this moment, C tries to lock in (1), an succeeds since A has just released
the lock. So it gets the lock and goes to (3), then (4).
- A is at (6) and wakes B up and steps to (7) and exits.
- B is woken up and goes to (3) then (4).
=> B and C both have the lock.
Perhaps I have missed something, but I don't find what. If I'm right, then why
don't we simply keep the same code as for the CONFIG_RTNETLINK case ?
Thanks in advance for any comment,
Regards,
Willy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
next reply other threads:[~2000-11-22 10:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-11-22 9:39 Willy Tarreau [this message]
2000-11-22 9:46 ` [BUG] 2.2.1[78] : RTNETLINK lock not properly locking ? David S. Miller
2000-11-22 11:27 ` Willy Tarreau
2000-11-22 11:27 ` David S. Miller
2000-11-22 15:36 ` Willy Tarreau
2000-11-22 18:09 ` kuznet
2000-11-23 6:14 ` Willy Tarreau
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=974885943.3a1b9437847da@imp.free.fr \
--to=willy.lkml@free.fr \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.