• O
    sched: fix the theoretical signal_wake_up() vs schedule() race · e0acd0a6
    Oleg Nesterov 提交于
    This is only theoretical, but after try_to_wake_up(p) was changed
    to check p->state under p->pi_lock the code like
    
    	__set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
    	schedule();
    
    can miss a signal. This is the special case of wait-for-condition,
    it relies on try_to_wake_up/schedule interaction and thus it does
    not need mb() between __set_current_state() and if(signal_pending).
    
    However, this __set_current_state() can move into the critical
    section protected by rq->lock, now that try_to_wake_up() takes
    another lock we need to ensure that it can't be reordered with
    "if (signal_pending(current))" check inside that section.
    
    The patch is actually one-liner, it simply adds smp_wmb() before
    spin_lock_irq(rq->lock). This is what try_to_wake_up() already
    does by the same reason.
    
    We turn this wmb() into the new helper, smp_mb__before_spinlock(),
    for better documentation and to allow the architectures to change
    the default implementation.
    
    While at it, kill smp_mb__after_lock(), it has no callers.
    
    Perhaps we can also add smp_mb__before/after_spinunlock() for
    prepare_to_wait().
    Signed-off-by: NOleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
    Acked-by: NPeter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
    Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
    e0acd0a6
spinlock.h 10.7 KB