All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [STABLE v5.10 1/2] rtmutex: Use waiter::task instead of current in remove_waiter()
@ 2026-07-21  7:54 Lee Jones
  2026-07-21  7:54 ` [STABLE v5.10 2/2] locking/rtmutex: Skip remove_waiter() when waiter is not enqueued Lee Jones
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Lee Jones @ 2026-07-21  7:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: lee, Peter Zijlstra, Ingo Molnar, Will Deacon, Steven Rostedt,
	Lai Jiangshan, Thomas Gleixner, Keenan Dong, linux-kernel
  Cc: stable, Yuan Tan, Yifan Wu, Juefei Pu, Xin Liu,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman

From: Keenan Dong <keenanat2000@gmail.com>

commit 3bfdc63936dd4773109b7b8c280c0f3b5ae7d349 upstream.

remove_waiter() is used by the slowlock paths, but it is also used for
proxy-lock rollback in rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock() when invoked from
futex_requeue().

In the latter case waiter::task is not current, but remove_waiter()
operates on current for the dequeue operation. That results in several
problems:

  1) the rbtree dequeue happens without waiter::task::pi_lock being held

  2) the waiter task's pi_blocked_on state is not cleared, which leaves a
     dangling pointer primed for UAF around.

  3) rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain() operates on the wrong top priority waiter
     task

Use waiter::task instead of current in all related operations in
remove_waiter() to cure those problems.

[ tglx: Fixup rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(), add a comment and amend the
  	changelog ]

Fixes: 8161239a8bcc ("rtmutex: Simplify PI algorithm and make highest prio task get lock")
Reported-by: Yuan Tan <yuantan098@gmail.com>
Reported-by: Yifan Wu <yifanwucs@gmail.com>
Reported-by: Juefei Pu <tomapufckgml@gmail.com>
Reported-by: Xin Liu <bird@lzu.edu.cn>
Signed-off-by: Keenan Dong <keenanat2000@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@kernel.org>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
(cherry picked from commit d8cce4773c2b23d819baf5abedc62f7b430e8745)
[Lee: Backported to linux-5.10.y from linux-6.1.y]
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>
---
 kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 11 +++++++----
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
index c6a2dafd4a3b..2ab2d6cce004 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
@@ -1061,20 +1061,23 @@ static void mark_wakeup_next_waiter(struct wake_q_head *wake_q,
  *
  * Must be called with lock->wait_lock held and interrupts disabled. I must
  * have just failed to try_to_take_rt_mutex().
+ *
+ * When invoked from rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock() waiter::task != current !
  */
 static void remove_waiter(struct rt_mutex *lock,
 			  struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter)
 {
 	bool is_top_waiter = (waiter == rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock));
 	struct task_struct *owner = rt_mutex_owner(lock);
+	struct task_struct *waiter_task = waiter->task;
 	struct rt_mutex *next_lock;
 
 	lockdep_assert_held(&lock->wait_lock);
 
-	raw_spin_lock(&current->pi_lock);
+	raw_spin_lock(&waiter_task->pi_lock);
 	rt_mutex_dequeue(lock, waiter);
-	current->pi_blocked_on = NULL;
-	raw_spin_unlock(&current->pi_lock);
+	waiter_task->pi_blocked_on = NULL;
+	raw_spin_unlock(&waiter_task->pi_lock);
 
 	/*
 	 * Only update priority if the waiter was the highest priority
@@ -1110,7 +1113,7 @@ static void remove_waiter(struct rt_mutex *lock,
 	raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
 
 	rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(owner, RT_MUTEX_MIN_CHAINWALK, lock,
-				   next_lock, NULL, current);
+				   next_lock, NULL, waiter_task);
 
 	raw_spin_lock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
 }
-- 
2.55.0.229.g6434b31f56-goog


^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

* [STABLE v5.10 2/2] locking/rtmutex: Skip remove_waiter() when waiter is not enqueued
  2026-07-21  7:54 [STABLE v5.10 1/2] rtmutex: Use waiter::task instead of current in remove_waiter() Lee Jones
@ 2026-07-21  7:54 ` Lee Jones
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Lee Jones @ 2026-07-21  7:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: lee, Peter Zijlstra, Ingo Molnar, Will Deacon, Steven Rostedt,
	Lai Jiangshan, Keenan Dong, Thomas Gleixner, linux-kernel
  Cc: stable, Davidlohr Bueso, syzbot+78147abe6c524f183ee9, Sasha Levin,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman

From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>

[ Upstream commit 40a25d59e85b3c8709ac2424d44f65610467871e ]

syzbot triggered the following splat in remove_waiter() via
FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE_PI:

  KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000a88-0x0000000000000a8f]
   class_raw_spinlock_constructor
   remove_waiter+0x159/0x1200 kernel/locking/rtmutex.c:1561
   rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock+0x103/0x120
   futex_requeue+0x10e4/0x20d0
   __x64_sys_futex+0x34f/0x4d0

task_blocks_on_rt_mutex() does not arm the waiter upon deadlock detection,
leaving waiter->task nil, where 3bfdc63936dd ("rtmutex: Use waiter::task instead
of current in remove_waiter()") made this fatal.

Furthermore, rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock() should not be calling into remove_waiter()
upon a successfully grabbing the rtmutex. 1a1fb985f2e2 ("futex: Handle early deadlock
return correctly"), moved the remove_waiter() out of __rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock()
(where 'ret' was only ever 0 or < 0) into the wrapper. Tighten this check to
account for try_to_take_rt_mutex().

Fixes: 3bfdc63936dd ("rtmutex: Use waiter::task instead of current in remove_waiter()")
Reported-by: syzbot+78147abe6c524f183ee9@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@kernel.org>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/69f114ac.050a0220.ac8b.0003.GAE@google.com/
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260507112913.1019537-1-dave@stgolabs.net
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
(cherry picked from commit 4afda3a1da02129568a3a2f1898aa13e6763bcba)
[Lee: Backported to linux-5.10.y from linux-6.1.y]
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>
---
 kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 5 ++++-
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
index 2ab2d6cce004..9cfe7f0aa04e 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
@@ -1074,6 +1074,9 @@ static void remove_waiter(struct rt_mutex *lock,
 
 	lockdep_assert_held(&lock->wait_lock);
 
+	if (!waiter_task) /* never enqueued */
+		return;
+
 	raw_spin_lock(&waiter_task->pi_lock);
 	rt_mutex_dequeue(lock, waiter);
 	waiter_task->pi_blocked_on = NULL;
@@ -1803,7 +1806,7 @@ int rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
 
 	raw_spin_lock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
 	ret = __rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock(lock, waiter, task);
-	if (unlikely(ret))
+	if (unlikely(ret < 0))
 		remove_waiter(lock, waiter);
 	raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
 
-- 
2.55.0.229.g6434b31f56-goog


^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2026-07-21  7:55 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2026-07-21  7:54 [STABLE v5.10 1/2] rtmutex: Use waiter::task instead of current in remove_waiter() Lee Jones
2026-07-21  7:54 ` [STABLE v5.10 2/2] locking/rtmutex: Skip remove_waiter() when waiter is not enqueued Lee Jones

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.