All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Yao Kai <yaokai34@huawei.com>
To: syzbot <syzbot@kernel.org>,
	<syzkaller-upstream-moderation@googlegroups.com>
Cc: <liuyongqiang13@huawei.com>, <syzbot@lists.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2] futex: Fix might_sleep() warning in futex_pivot_pending()
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2026 11:32:49 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <d573e389-31b8-4808-a51b-2affccd7fde1@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8adeeded-1ded-4780-aed1-739d54729566@mail.kernel.org>



On 8/13/2026 11:15 AM, syzbot wrote:
> A recent change in commit 8e7ff730dd96 ("futex: Fix race in
> futex_pivot_pending() during private hash resize") modified
> futex_pivot_pending() to acquire a mutex to fix a race condition. However,
> futex_pivot_pending() is evaluated as a condition inside wait_var_event()
> in futex_hash_allocate(). Since wait_var_event() sets the task state to
> TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE before evaluating the condition, calling a blocking
> operation like mutex_lock() is invalid and triggers a might_sleep()
> warning:
> 
> do not call blocking ops when !TASK_RUNNING; state=2 set at
> [<ffffffff819e8c8d>] prepare_to_wait_event+0x3dd/0x480
> kernel/sched/wait.c:317
> WARNING: kernel/sched/core.c:9124 at __might_sleep+0x92/0xf0
> kernel/sched/core.c:9120
> Call Trace:
>   <TASK>
>   __mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:623 [inline]
>   __mutex_lock+0x118/0x1550 kernel/locking/mutex.c:821
>   class_mutex_constructor include/linux/mutex.h:253 [inline]
>   futex_pivot_pending kernel/futex/core.c:1789 [inline]
>   futex_hash_allocate+0x7fb/0xf00 kernel/futex/core.c:1872
>   __do_sys_prctl kernel/sys.c:2885 [inline]
>   __se_sys_prctl+0x78c/0x1910 kernel/sys.c:2534
> 
> Furthermore, if the mutex is contended, mutex_lock() will block. When it
> acquires the lock and returns, the task state will be reset to
> TASK_RUNNING. This causes the subsequent schedule() in the wait loop to
> return immediately, leading to a busy loop that consumes 100% CPU until the
> condition is met.
> 
> Fix this by reverting futex_pivot_pending() to a lockless implementation
> using RCU and memory barriers, which is the idiomatic way to handle
> conditions in wait_event loops. By reading the hash pointer first,
> executing an smp_rmb() memory barrier, and then reading hash_new, we
> leverage the Message Passing (MP) pattern to guarantee correctness without
> blocking. This pairs with the rcu_assign_pointer() release barrier in
> __futex_pivot_hash(). If the reader sees the new hash, it is guaranteed to
> see the cleared hash_new and correctly return true. If the reader sees the
> old hash, it will check futex_ref_is_dead(old), which will return true if
> the writer has already completed the pivot. The old hash memory is
> guaranteed to remain valid for the duration of the check in
> futex_ref_is_dead() because futex_pivot_pending() executes within an RCU
> read-side critical section and the old hash is freed using kvfree_rcu().
> 
> Fixes: 8e7ff730dd96 ("futex: Fix race in futex_pivot_pending() during private hash resize")
> Assisted-by: Gemini:gemini-3.6-flash Gemini:gemini-3.1-pro-preview syzbot
> Reported-by: syzbot+350a93852ac854927f45@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=350a93852ac854927f45
> Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/ai_job?id=d25bd376-be2e-491a-a0a7-ef39dc13a9a5
> To: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
> To: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>
> To: "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@kernel.org>
> To: "Yao Kai" <yaokai34@huawei.com>
> Cc: =?utf-8?q?Andr=C3=A9_Almeida?= <andrealmeid@igalia.com>
> Cc: "Davidlohr Bueso" <dave@stgolabs.net>
> Cc: "Darren Hart" <dvhart@infradead.org>
> Cc: "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>
> 
> ---
> v2:
> - Use WRITE_ONCE() for stores to hash_new to complement READ_ONCE() in futex_pivot_pending().
> 
> v1:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/1f966921-7789-4c70-92cd-ae6c4f8d5be4@mail.kernel.org/T/
> ---
> diff --git a/kernel/futex/core.c b/kernel/futex/core.c
> index 128c5752f..e84be5410 100644
> --- a/kernel/futex/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/futex/core.c
> @@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ static bool __futex_pivot_hash(struct mm_struct *mm, struct futex_private_hash *
>   	fph = rcu_dereference_protected(mmph->hash, lockdep_is_held(&mmph->lock));
>   	if (fph) {
>   		if (!futex_ref_is_dead(fph)) {
> -			mmph->hash_new = new;
> +			WRITE_ONCE(mmph->hash_new, new);
>   			return false;
>   		}
>   
> @@ -224,7 +224,7 @@ static void futex_pivot_hash(struct mm_struct *mm)
>   
>   		fph = mm->futex.phash.hash_new;
>   		if (fph) {
> -			mm->futex.phash.hash_new = NULL;
> +			WRITE_ONCE(mm->futex.phash.hash_new, NULL);
>   			__futex_pivot_hash(mm, fph);
>   		}
>   	}
> @@ -1786,12 +1786,18 @@ static bool futex_pivot_pending(struct mm_struct *mm)
>   	struct futex_mm_phash *mmph = &mm->futex.phash;
>   	struct futex_private_hash *fph;
>   
> -	guard(mutex)(&mmph->lock);
> +	guard(rcu)();
>   
> -	if (!mmph->hash_new)
> +	fph = rcu_dereference(mmph->hash);
> +	/*
> +	 * Ensure that if we see the new hash, we will also see the cleared
> +	 * hash_new pointer. Pairs with rcu_assign_pointer() in
> +	 * __futex_pivot_hash().
> +	 */
> +	smp_rmb();
> +	if (!READ_ONCE(mmph->hash_new))
>   		return true;
>   
> -	fph = rcu_dereference_raw(mmph->hash);
>   	return futex_ref_is_dead(fph);
>   }
>   
> @@ -1879,7 +1885,7 @@ static int futex_hash_allocate(unsigned int hash_slots, unsigned int flags)
>   		cur = rcu_dereference_protected(mm->futex.phash.hash,
>   						lockdep_is_held(&mm->futex.phash.lock));
>   		new = mm->futex.phash.hash_new;
> -		mm->futex.phash.hash_new = NULL;
> +		WRITE_ONCE(mm->futex.phash.hash_new, NULL);
>   
>   		if (fph) {
>   			if (cur && !cur->hash_mask) {
> @@ -1889,7 +1895,7 @@ static int futex_hash_allocate(unsigned int hash_slots, unsigned int flags)
>   				 * the second one returns here.
>   				 */
>   				free = fph;
> -				mm->futex.phash.hash_new = new;
> +				WRITE_ONCE(mm->futex.phash.hash_new, new);
>   				return -EBUSY;
>   			}
>   			if (cur && !new) {
> 
> 
> base-commit: db2ddb87143519e20a95aa36c60b36107b736a58

Thanks, the WRITE_ONCE() changes address my comment and the code looks
correct.

One commit-message correction remains: mutex_lock() may restore
TASK_RUNNING when it takes the slow path, causing the immediately
following schedule() not to sleep. However, the next wait-loop iteration
sets TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE again, so this does not necessarily result in a
100% CPU busy loop until the condition is met. Please drop or reword that
paragraph.

Please also add:

Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org

since the commit being fixed is marked for stable.

Please send a v3 with these changes.


      reply	other threads:[~2026-08-13  3:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-08-13  3:15 [PATCH RFC v2] futex: Fix might_sleep() warning in futex_pivot_pending() syzbot
2026-08-13  3:32 ` Yao Kai [this message]

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=d573e389-31b8-4808-a51b-2affccd7fde1@huawei.com \
    --to=yaokai34@huawei.com \
    --cc=liuyongqiang13@huawei.com \
    --cc=syzbot@kernel.org \
    --cc=syzbot@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=syzkaller-upstream-moderation@googlegroups.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.