lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Jan]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Fix data race in mark_rt_mutex_waiters
From
On 1/20/2023 4:54 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 06:58:20AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> On 1/20/2023 5:55 AM, Hernan Ponce de Leon wrote:
>>> From: Hernan Ponce de Leon <hernanl.leon@huawei.com>
>>>
>>
>>> kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
>>> index 010cf4e6d0b8..7ed9472edd48 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
>>> @@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ static __always_inline void mark_rt_mutex_waiters(struct rt_mutex_base *lock)
>>> unsigned long owner, *p = (unsigned long *) &lock->owner;
>>> do {
>>> - owner = *p;
>>> + owner = READ_ONCE(*p);
>>> } while (cmpxchg_relaxed(p, owner,
>>
>>
>> I don't see how this makes any difference at all.
>> *p can be read a dozen times and it's fine; cmpxchg has barrier semantics for compilers afaics
>
> Doing so does suppress a KCSAN warning. You could also use data_race()
> if it turns out that the volatile semantics would prevent a valuable
> compiler optimization.

I think the import question is "is this a harmful data race (and needs
to be fixed as proposed by the patch) or a harmless one (and we should
use data_race() to silence tools)?".

In https://lkml.org/lkml/2023/1/22/160 I describe how this data race can
affect important ordering guarantees for the rest of the code. For this
reason I consider it a harmful one. If this is not the case, I would
appreciate some feedback or pointer to resources about what races care
to avoid spamming the mailing list in the future.

Hernan

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-26 23:51    [W:1.758 / U:0.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site