From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@gmail.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
fbl@redhat.com, nhorman@redhat.com, davem@redhat.com,
Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: fix race in the receive/select
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:22:14 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A475266.9040203@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4A474FB5.4070901@gmail.com>
Jarek Poplawski wrote, On 06/28/2009 01:10 PM:
> Oleg Nesterov wrote, On 06/26/2009 04:50 PM:
>
>> On 06/26, Davide Libenzi wrote:
>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>>
>>>> And if we remove waitqueue_active() in xxx_update(), then lock/unlock is
>>>> not needed too.
>>>>
>>>> If xxx_poll() takes q->lock first, it can safely miss the changes in ->status
>>>> and schedule(): xxx_update() will take q->lock, notice the sleeper and wake
>>>> it up (ok, it will set ->triggered but this doesn't matter).
>>>>
>>>> If xxx_update() takes q->lock first, xxx_poll() must see the changes in
>>>> status after poll_wait()->unlock(&q->lock) (in fact, after lock, not unlock).
>>> Sure. The snippet above was just to show what typically the code does, not
>>> a suggestion on how to solve the socket case.
>> Yes, yes. I just meant you are right imho, we shouldn't add mb() into
>> add_wait_queue().
>>
>>> But yeah, the problem in this case is the waitqueue_active() call. Without
>>> that, the wait queue lock/unlock in poll_wait() and the one in wake_up()
>>> guarantees the necessary barriers.
>>> Some might argue the costs of the lock/unlock of q->lock, and wonder if
>>> MBs are a more efficient solution. This is something I'm not going into.
>>> To me, it just looked not right having cross-matching MB in different
>>> subsystems.
>> This is subjective and thus up to maintainers, but personally I think you
>> are very, very right.
>>
>> Perhaps we can add
>>
>> void sock_poll_wait(struct file *file, struct sock *sk, poll_table *pt)
>> {
>> if (pt) {
>> poll_wait(file, sk->sk_sleep, pt);
>> /*
>> * fat comment
>> */
>> smp_mb(); // or smp_mb__after_unlock();
>> }
>> }
>>
>> Oleg.
>
>
> Maybe 'a bit' further?:
>
> static inline void __poll_wait(struct file * filp, wait_queue_head_t * wait_address, poll_table *p)
> {
> p->qproc(filp, wait_address, p);
> }
>
> static inline void poll_wait(struct file * filp, wait_queue_head_t * wait_address, poll_table *p)
> {
> if (p && wait_address)
> __poll_wait(filp, wait_address, p);
> }
>
> static inline void sock_poll_wait(struct file * filp, wait_queue_head_t * wait_address, poll_table *p)
> {
> if (p && wait_address) {
> __poll_wait(filp, wait_address, p);
> /*
> * fat comment
> */
> smp_mb(); // or smp_mb__after_unlock();
> }
> }
>
Hmm... of course:
static inline void sock_poll_wait(struct file * filp, struct sock *sk, poll_table *p)
{
if (p && sk->sk_sleep) {
__poll_wait(filp, sk->sk_sleep, p);
/*
* fat comment
*/
smp_mb(); // or smp_mb__after_unlock();
}
}
Jarek P.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-06-28 11:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-06-25 12:25 [PATCH] net: fix race in the receive/select Jiri Olsa
2009-06-25 12:24 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-06-26 1:31 ` Davide Libenzi
2009-06-26 1:59 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-06-26 2:04 ` Davide Libenzi
2009-06-26 2:11 ` David Miller
2009-06-26 2:19 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-06-26 3:14 ` Davide Libenzi
2009-06-26 5:42 ` Jarek Poplawski
2009-06-26 8:10 ` Jarek Poplawski
2009-06-26 13:57 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-06-26 17:32 ` Davide Libenzi
2009-06-26 14:50 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-06-26 18:12 ` Davide Libenzi
2009-06-26 18:17 ` David Miller
2009-06-26 19:35 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-06-29 9:34 ` Jiri Olsa
2009-06-28 11:10 ` Jarek Poplawski
2009-06-28 11:22 ` Jarek Poplawski [this message]
2009-06-28 18:04 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-06-28 21:48 ` Jarek Poplawski
2009-06-29 9:27 ` Jiri Olsa
2009-06-26 13:46 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-06-25 23:18 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-06-26 1:50 ` Tejun Heo
2009-06-29 9:12 ` Andi Kleen
2009-06-29 9:24 ` Jiri Olsa
2009-06-29 16:59 ` Zan Lynx
2009-06-29 17:29 ` Andi Kleen
2009-07-01 3:39 ` Herbert Xu
2009-07-01 6:27 ` Andi Kleen
2009-07-01 7:03 ` Herbert Xu
2009-07-01 7:22 ` Andi Kleen
2009-07-01 8:31 ` Herbert Xu
2009-07-01 8:44 ` Jiri Olsa
2009-07-01 10:58 ` Herbert Xu
2009-07-01 13:07 ` Herbert Xu
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=4A475266.9040203@gmail.com \
--to=jarkao2@gmail.com \
--cc=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=davidel@xmailserver.org \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=fbl@redhat.com \
--cc=htejun@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nhorman@redhat.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).