Source-Changes-HG archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
[src/netbsd-1-4]: src/sys/kern Pull up revision 1.37 (requested by sommerfeld):
details: https://anonhg.NetBSD.org/src/rev/bdc0e9858a0b
branches: netbsd-1-4
changeset: 470634:bdc0e9858a0b
user: he <he%NetBSD.org@localhost>
date: Thu Jun 01 17:58:03 2000 +0000
description:
Pull up revision 1.37 (requested by sommerfeld):
Remove existing semaphore system locking mechanism. This avoids
giving users a way to wedge processes which use semaphores (note:
this would only affect processes using semaphores). Fixes
SA#2000-004.
diffstat:
sys/kern/sysv_sem.c | 168 ++++-----------------------------------------------
1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 155 deletions(-)
diffs (245 lines):
diff -r 14506be9a75e -r bdc0e9858a0b sys/kern/sysv_sem.c
--- a/sys/kern/sysv_sem.c Thu Jun 01 17:47:11 2000 +0000
+++ b/sys/kern/sysv_sem.c Thu Jun 01 17:58:03 2000 +0000
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-/* $NetBSD: sysv_sem.c,v 1.32 1998/10/21 22:24:28 tron Exp $ */
+/* $NetBSD: sysv_sem.c,v 1.32.6.1 2000/06/01 17:58:03 he Exp $ */
/*
* Implementation of SVID semaphores
@@ -21,7 +21,6 @@
#include <sys/syscallargs.h>
int semtot = 0;
-struct proc *semlock_holder = NULL;
#ifdef SEM_DEBUG
#define SEM_PRINTF(a) printf a
@@ -29,11 +28,15 @@
#define SEM_PRINTF(a)
#endif
-void semlock __P((struct proc *));
struct sem_undo *semu_alloc __P((struct proc *));
int semundo_adjust __P((struct proc *, struct sem_undo **, int, int, int));
void semundo_clear __P((int, int));
+/*
+ * XXXSMP Once we go MP, there needs to be a lock for the semaphore system.
+ * Until then, we're saved by being a non-preemptive kernel.
+ */
+
void
seminit()
{
@@ -55,28 +58,8 @@
semu_list = NULL;
}
-void
-semlock(p)
- struct proc *p;
-{
-
- while (semlock_holder != NULL && semlock_holder != p)
- sleep((caddr_t)&semlock_holder, (PZERO - 4));
-}
-
/*
- * Lock or unlock the entire semaphore facility.
- *
- * This will probably eventually evolve into a general purpose semaphore
- * facility status enquiry mechanism (I don't like the "read /dev/kmem"
- * approach currently taken by ipcs and the amount of info that we want
- * to be able to extract for ipcs is probably beyond the capability of
- * the getkerninfo facility.
- *
- * At the time that the current version of semconfig was written, ipcs is
- * the only user of the semconfig facility. It uses it to ensure that the
- * semaphore facility data structures remain static while it fishes around
- * in /dev/kmem.
+ * Placebo.
*/
int
@@ -85,33 +68,8 @@
void *v;
register_t *retval;
{
- struct sys_semconfig_args /* {
- syscallarg(int) flag;
- } */ *uap = v;
- int eval = 0;
-
- semlock(p);
-
- switch (SCARG(uap, flag)) {
- case SEM_CONFIG_FREEZE:
- semlock_holder = p;
- break;
-
- case SEM_CONFIG_THAW:
- semlock_holder = NULL;
- wakeup((caddr_t)&semlock_holder);
- break;
-
- default:
- printf(
- "semconfig: unknown flag parameter value (%d) - ignored\n",
- SCARG(uap, flag));
- eval = EINVAL;
- break;
- }
-
*retval = 0;
- return(eval);
+ return 0;
}
/*
@@ -309,8 +267,6 @@
SEM_PRINTF(("call to semctl(%d, %d, %d, %p)\n",
semid, semnum, cmd, arg));
- semlock(p);
-
semid = IPCID_TO_IX(semid);
if (semid < 0 || semid >= seminfo.semmsl)
return(EINVAL);
@@ -467,8 +423,6 @@
SEM_PRINTF(("semget(0x%x, %d, 0%o)\n", key, nsems, semflg));
- semlock(p);
-
if (key != IPC_PRIVATE) {
for (semid = 0; semid < seminfo.semmni; semid++) {
if ((sema[semid].sem_perm.mode & SEM_ALLOC) &&
@@ -564,8 +518,6 @@
SEM_PRINTF(("call to semop(%d, %p, %d)\n", semid, sops, nsops));
- semlock(p);
-
semid = IPCID_TO_IX(semid); /* Convert back to zero origin */
if (semid < 0 || semid >= seminfo.semmsl)
@@ -804,98 +756,14 @@
}
/*
- * There are a few possibilities to consider here ...
- *
- * 1) The semaphore facility isn't currently locked. In this case,
- * this call should proceed normally.
- * 2) The semaphore facility is locked by this process (i.e. the one
- * that is exiting). In this case, this call should proceed as
- * usual and the facility should be unlocked at the end of this
- * routine (since the locker is exiting).
- * 3) The semaphore facility is locked by some other process and this
- * process doesn't have an undo structure allocated for it. In this
- * case, this call should proceed normally (i.e. not accomplish
- * anything and, most importantly, not block since that is
- * unnecessary and could result in a LOT of processes blocking in
- * here if the facility is locked for a long time).
- * 4) The semaphore facility is locked by some other process and this
- * process has an undo structure allocated for it. In this case,
- * this call should block until the facility has been unlocked since
- * the holder of the lock may be examining this process's proc entry
- * (the ipcs utility does this when printing out the information
- * from the allocated sem undo elements).
- *
- * This leads to the conclusion that we should not block unless we
- * discover that the someone else has the semaphore facility locked and
- * this process has an undo structure. Let's do that...
- *
- * Note that we do this in a separate pass from the one that processes
- * any existing undo structure since we don't want to risk blocking at
- * that time (it would make the actual unlinking of the element from
- * the chain of allocated undo structures rather messy).
- */
-
- /*
- * Does someone else hold the semaphore facility's lock?
+ * If there is no undo vector, skip to the end.
*/
- if (semlock_holder != NULL && semlock_holder != p) {
- /*
- * Yes (i.e. we are in case 3 or 4).
- *
- * If we didn't find an undo vector associated with this
- * process than we can just return (i.e. we are in case 3).
- *
- * Note that we know that someone else is holding the lock so
- * we don't even have to see if we're holding it...
- */
-
- if (suptr == NULL)
- return;
-
- /*
- * We are in case 4.
- *
- * Go to sleep as long as someone else is locking the semaphore
- * facility (note that we won't get here if we are holding the
- * lock so we don't need to check for that possibility).
- */
-
- while (semlock_holder != NULL)
- sleep((caddr_t)&semlock_holder, (PZERO - 4));
-
- /*
- * Nobody is holding the facility (i.e. we are now in case 1).
- * We can proceed safely according to the argument outlined
- * above.
- *
- * We look up the undo vector again, in case the list changed
- * while we were asleep, and the parent is now different.
- */
-
- for (supptr = &semu_list; (suptr = *supptr) != NULL;
- supptr = &suptr->un_next) {
- if (suptr->un_proc == p)
- break;
- }
-
- if (suptr == NULL)
- panic("semexit: undo vector disappeared");
- } else {
- /*
- * No (i.e. we are in case 1 or 2).
- *
- * If there is no undo vector, skip to the end and unlock the
- * semaphore facility if necessary.
- */
-
- if (suptr == NULL)
- goto unlock;
- }
-
+ if (suptr == NULL)
+ return;
+
/*
- * We are now in case 1 or 2, and we have an undo vector for this
- * process.
+ * We now have an undo vector for this process.
*/
SEM_PRINTF(("proc @%p has undo structure with %d entries\n", p,
@@ -946,14 +814,4 @@
SEM_PRINTF(("removing vector\n"));
suptr->un_proc = NULL;
*supptr = suptr->un_next;
-
-unlock:
- /*
- * If the exiting process is holding the global semaphore facility
- * lock (i.e. we are in case 2) then release it.
- */
- if (semlock_holder == p) {
- semlock_holder = NULL;
- wakeup((caddr_t)&semlock_holder);
- }
}
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index |
Old Index