From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3ED533375D5; Tue, 21 Jul 2026 22:54:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784674441; cv=none; b=eZ1dAusuqH9EVSRw6LxtrFpKJIMrbPO7YeMOWwdWxfIwA+Swb5RqHjGI25nz6rB6zvex2uzmWsJaBACVudNwbsPrz0NrWF6ok9tGE8rMi1MbtfOIbh02XUQ8qf+wTIDecWQDB5o6G+YeqeyOLoH+axDrETDbTgp2A6oabXHf9go= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784674441; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fefFSNlyz5HX3v8hC4GZDVyC+R0xhHDlwszxX+TdXsQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=QXr92wvkKSSs/hracYcg9J0ov21kic6C+QgfYVcb7EYrqkoilT3rMpbzuuAHTtWCfE6vlg+iitLeHXJZlL/t8hmXfQg+rnqWCLipXj10ypsMvxv/1Eg5/vd+tEpEFspvCxrx1i/gXshcyT3nYv/6xr0nj6gfqRymgag98UCdApY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b=PA5PQF9V; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b="PA5PQF9V" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 66B411F000E9; Tue, 21 Jul 2026 22:53:59 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1784674439; bh=vFHXFPrcwtwll1AHWAbeJ6SO0P/xrSa1dn3pK/Qrq0o=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=PA5PQF9Vo/mJJmwBOr6fiIwz68wEnZkuQ8Y1ipozfi4DQpM+a1+zrUb8iuzwFXXd8 56g1LTOta26fUDoevVuPGmfmNtwYh0NbGDk/pkbTFZwlfBtIVY7gOvuSegKOsoHvrR NApJPKxCXmt8C+VqwccVqiFtwLbYwZxbsiyFuAaM= From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: stable@vger.kernel.org Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , patches@lists.linux.dev, Yuan Tan , Yifan Wu , Juefei Pu , Xin Liu , Keenan Dong , Thomas Gleixner , Lee Jones Subject: [PATCH 5.10 540/699] rtmutex: Use waiter::task instead of current in remove_waiter() Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2026 17:24:59 +0200 Message-ID: <20260721152407.880328402@linuxfoundation.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.55.0 In-Reply-To: <20260721152355.667394603@linuxfoundation.org> References: <20260721152355.667394603@linuxfoundation.org> User-Agent: quilt/0.69 X-stable: review X-Patchwork-Hint: ignore Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: patches@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 5.10-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: Keenan Dong 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 Reported-by: Yifan Wu Reported-by: Juefei Pu Reported-by: Xin Liu Signed-off-by: Keenan Dong Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org (cherry picked from commit d8cce4773c2b23d819baf5abedc62f7b430e8745) [Lee: Backported to linux-5.10.y from linux-6.1.y] Signed-off-by: Lee Jones Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 11 +++++++---- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) --- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c +++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c @@ -1061,20 +1061,23 @@ static void mark_wakeup_next_waiter(stru * * 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(¤t->pi_lock); + raw_spin_lock(&waiter_task->pi_lock); rt_mutex_dequeue(lock, waiter); - current->pi_blocked_on = NULL; - raw_spin_unlock(¤t->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_mute 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); }