The proc interface is not aware of sem_lock(), it instead calls
ipc_lock_object() directly. This means that simple semop() operations
can run in parallel with the proc interface. Right now, this is
uncritical, because the implementation doesn't do anything that requires
a proper synchronization.
But it is dangerous and therefore should be fixed.
Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
struct sem_array *sma = it;
time_t sem_otime;
+ /*
+ * The proc interface isn't aware of sem_lock(), it calls
+ * ipc_lock_object() directly (in sysvipc_find_ipc).
+ * In order to stay compatible with sem_lock(), we must wait until
+ * all simple semop() calls have left their critical regions.
+ */
+ sem_wait_array(sma);
+
sem_otime = get_semotime(sma);
return seq_printf(s,