futex: Document ordering guarantees

Date	Thu, 2 Jan 2014 07:05:19 -0800

From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>

That's essential, if you want to hack on futexes.

Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Cc: Scott Norton <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Tom Vaden <tom.vaden@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul Reioux <reioux@gmail.com>
futex: Avoid taking hb lock if nothing to wakeup

Date	Thu, 2 Jan 2014 07:05:20 -0800

From: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>

In futex_wake() there is clearly no point in taking the hb->lock if we know
beforehand that there are no tasks to be woken. While the hash bucket's plist
head is a cheap way of knowing this, we cannot rely 100% on it as there is a
racy window between the futex_wait call and when the task is actually added to
the plist. To this end, we couple it with the spinlock check as tasks trying to
enter the critical region are most likely potential waiters that will be added
to the plist, thus preventing tasks sleeping forever if wakers don't acknowledge
all possible waiters.

Furthermore, the futex ordering guarantees are preserved, ensuring that waiters
either observe the changed user space value before blocking or is woken by a
concurrent waker. For wakers, this is done by relying on the barriers in
get_futex_key_refs() -- for archs that do have implicit mb in atomic_inc() we
explicitly add them through a new futex_get_mm function. For waiters we rely
on the fact that spin_lock calls already update the head counter, so spinners
are visible even if the lock hasn't been acquired yet.

For more details please refer to the updated comments in the code and related
discussion: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/26/556

Special thanks to tglx for careful review and feedback.

Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com>
Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Scott Norton <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Tom Vaden <tom.vaden@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul Reioux <reioux@gmail.com>
kernel/futex.c: Linux 3.4 compatibility fix up

Signed-off-by: Paul Reioux <reioux@gmail.com>
ext4: fix memory leak in xattr

If we take the 2nd retry path in ext4_expand_extra_isize_ea, we
potentionally return from the function without having freed these
allocations.  If we don't do the return, we over-write the previous
allocation pointers, so we leak either way.

Spotted with Coverity.

[ Fixed by tytso to set is and bs to NULL after freeing these
  pointers, in case in the retry loop we later end up triggering an
  error causing a jump to cleanup, at which point we could have a double
  free bug. -- Ted ]

Change-Id: I49b8ca41a6c6d44b563eb23306870258a3affd3b
Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <davej@fedoraproject.org>
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Git-commit: 6e4ea8e33b2057b85d75175dd89b93f5e26de3bc
Git-repo: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git
Signed-off-by: Osvaldo Banuelos <osvaldob@codeaurora.org>

Conflicts:
	fs/ext4/xattr.c