Re: [PATCH] fix theoretical ccids_{read,write}_lock() race

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:11:04 +0400 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru> wrote:

> On 07/21, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 19:02:06 +0400 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru> wrote:
> > 
> > > Make sure that spin_unlock_wait() is properly ordered wrt atomic_inc().
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
> > > 
> > > --- t/net/dccp/ccid.c~ccid	2006-12-18 18:17:31.000000000 +0300
> > > +++ t/net/dccp/ccid.c	2007-07-21 18:29:21.000000000 +0400
> > > @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ static inline void ccids_write_unlock(vo
> > >  static inline void ccids_read_lock(void)
> > >  {
> > >  	atomic_inc(&ccids_lockct);
> > > +	smp_mb__after_atomic_inc();
> > >  	spin_unlock_wait(&ccids_lock);
> > >  }
> > >  
> > 
> > Why not just use standard rwlocks in there?
> > 
> > (This is probably an FAQ, but it should be).
> 
> Perhaps because read_lock() doesn't allow to sleep?
> 

down_read() does.

afaict the code doesn't sleep while holding that lock anwyay.
-
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/