From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"André Almeida" <andrealmeid@igalia.com>,
"Darren Hart" <dvhart@infradead.org>,
"Davidlohr Bueso" <dave@stgolabs.net>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Borislav Petkov" <bp@alien8.de>, "Yao Kai" <yaokai34@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] futex: Add missing rt_mutex_.*_schedule() around rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock()
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2026 15:23:34 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260824132334.GI687043@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260824125544.2353006-2-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
On Mon, Aug 24, 2026 at 02:55:42PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> From: Yao Kai <yaokai34@huawei.com>
>
> A waiter requeued onto a PI futex can reach rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock()
> without rtmutex schedule preparation, triggering the lockdep_assert() in
> rt_mutex_schedule().
> The lack of it, can be seen with requeue PI, multiple waiters and
> requeing multiple tasks, the subsequent requeued task can be requeued in
> the state Q_REQUEUE_PI_DONE:
>
> waiter requeue task
> ------ ------------
> futex_wait_requeue_pi()
> futex_wait_setup()
> futex_queue(&q)
> futex_requeue()
> futex_proxy_trylock_atomic()
> futex_requeue_pi_prepare()
> Q_REQUEUE_PI_NONE->Q_REQUEUE_PI_IN_PROGRESS
>
> rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock() (ret = 0)
> requeue_futex()
> futex_do_wait()
> futex_requeue_pi_complete()
> Q_REQUEUE_PI_IN_PROGRESS -> Q_REQUEUE_PI_DONE
> futex_requeue_pi_wakeup_sync()
> rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock()
> rt_mutex_schedule() (on contention)
>
> In the Q_REQUEUE_PI_DONE case the waiter will acquire the pi_mutex.
> Should the lock be contended, the waiter will invoke rt_mutex_schedule()
> without invoking rt_mutex_.*_schedule() before/ after scheduling.
>
> Invoke rt_mutex_pre_schedule() and rt_mutex_post_schedule() directly around
> rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock().
Still doesn't explain why this is makes sense. Perhaps something like
the below comment to demystify the code?
> [bigeasy: Redid parts of the changelog, dropped the comment misleading]
>
> Fixes: d14f9e930b90 ("locking/rtmutex: Use rt_mutex specific scheduler helpers")
> Suggested-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
> Signed-off-by: Yao Kai <yaokai34@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
> Reviewed-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
> ---
> kernel/futex/requeue.c | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/futex/requeue.c b/kernel/futex/requeue.c
> index 79823ad136830..d8c9e7d218695 100644
> --- a/kernel/futex/requeue.c
> +++ b/kernel/futex/requeue.c
> @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
> // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
>
> #include <linux/plist.h>
> +#include <linux/sched/rt.h>
> #include <linux/sched/signal.h>
>
> #include "futex.h"
> @@ -865,7 +866,10 @@ int futex_wait_requeue_pi(u32 __user *uaddr, unsigned int flags,
> case Q_REQUEUE_PI_DONE:
> /* Requeue completed. Current is 'pi_blocked_on' the rtmutex */
> pi_mutex = &q.pi_state->pi_mutex;
> +
/*
* Since current is doing the requeue, it cannot also be
* a waiter on the same futex.
*/
> + rt_mutex_pre_schedule();
> ret = rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock(pi_mutex, to, &rt_waiter);
> + rt_mutex_post_schedule();
>
> /*
> * See futex_unlock_pi()'s cleanup: comment.
> --
> 2.55.0
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-24 13:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-24 12:55 [PATCH v3 0/2] futex: Address two futex-requeue-pi issues Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-08-24 12:55 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] futex: Add missing rt_mutex_.*_schedule() around rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock() Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-08-24 13:23 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2026-08-24 14:09 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-08-26 18:06 ` Thomas Gleixner
2026-08-27 8:37 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-08-27 12:31 ` Thomas Gleixner
2026-09-04 5:43 ` Thomas Gleixner
2026-09-04 5:45 ` Thomas Gleixner
2026-08-24 12:55 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] futex: Prevent rcuwait use-after-free during requeue PI Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260824132334.GI687043@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=andrealmeid@igalia.com \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=dvhart@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=yaokai34@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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.