From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To: julia@ni.com
Cc: linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: [PATCH 1/6] futex: Fix pi_state->owner serialization
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2018 15:31:26 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180606133131.7747-2-bigeasy@linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180606133131.7747-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
[ Upstream commit c74aef2d06a9f59cece89093eecc552933cba72a ]
There was a reported suspicion about a race between exit_pi_state_list()
and put_pi_state(). The same report mentioned the comment with
put_pi_state() said it should be called with hb->lock held, and it no
longer is in all places.
As it turns out, the pi_state->owner serialization is indeed broken. As per
the new rules:
734009e96d19 ("futex: Change locking rules")
pi_state->owner should be serialized by pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock.
For the sites setting pi_state->owner we already hold wait_lock (where
required) but exit_pi_state_list() and put_pi_state() were not and
raced on clearing it.
Fixes: 734009e96d19 ("futex: Change locking rules")
Reported-by: Gratian Crisan <gratian.crisan@ni.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: dvhart@infradead.org
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170922154806.jd3ffltfk24m4o4y@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
---
kernel/futex.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/futex.c b/kernel/futex.c
index 1e4c72447456..19b016bbcc87 100644
--- a/kernel/futex.c
+++ b/kernel/futex.c
@@ -819,8 +819,6 @@ static void get_pi_state(struct futex_pi_state *pi_state)
/*
* Drops a reference to the pi_state object and frees or caches it
* when the last reference is gone.
- *
- * Must be called with the hb lock held.
*/
static void put_pi_state(struct futex_pi_state *pi_state)
{
@@ -835,16 +833,22 @@ static void put_pi_state(struct futex_pi_state *pi_state)
* and has cleaned up the pi_state already
*/
if (pi_state->owner) {
- raw_spin_lock_irq(&pi_state->owner->pi_lock);
- list_del_init(&pi_state->list);
- raw_spin_unlock_irq(&pi_state->owner->pi_lock);
+ struct task_struct *owner;
- rt_mutex_proxy_unlock(&pi_state->pi_mutex, pi_state->owner);
+ raw_spin_lock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
+ owner = pi_state->owner;
+ if (owner) {
+ raw_spin_lock(&owner->pi_lock);
+ list_del_init(&pi_state->list);
+ raw_spin_unlock(&owner->pi_lock);
+ }
+ rt_mutex_proxy_unlock(&pi_state->pi_mutex, owner);
+ raw_spin_unlock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
}
- if (current->pi_state_cache)
+ if (current->pi_state_cache) {
kfree(pi_state);
- else {
+ } else {
/*
* pi_state->list is already empty.
* clear pi_state->owner.
@@ -903,14 +907,15 @@ void exit_pi_state_list(struct task_struct *curr)
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&curr->pi_lock);
spin_lock(&hb->lock);
-
- raw_spin_lock_irq(&curr->pi_lock);
+ raw_spin_lock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
+ raw_spin_lock(&curr->pi_lock);
/*
* We dropped the pi-lock, so re-check whether this
* task still owns the PI-state:
*/
if (head->next != next) {
- raw_spin_unlock_irq(&curr->pi_lock);
+ raw_spin_unlock(&curr->pi_lock);
+ raw_spin_unlock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
spin_unlock(&hb->lock);
raw_spin_lock_irq(&curr->pi_lock);
continue;
@@ -920,9 +925,10 @@ void exit_pi_state_list(struct task_struct *curr)
WARN_ON(list_empty(&pi_state->list));
list_del_init(&pi_state->list);
pi_state->owner = NULL;
- raw_spin_unlock_irq(&curr->pi_lock);
+ raw_spin_unlock(&curr->pi_lock);
get_pi_state(pi_state);
+ raw_spin_unlock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
spin_unlock(&hb->lock);
rt_mutex_futex_unlock(&pi_state->pi_mutex);
@@ -1204,6 +1210,10 @@ static int attach_to_pi_owner(u32 uval, union futex_key *key,
WARN_ON(!list_empty(&pi_state->list));
list_add(&pi_state->list, &p->pi_state_list);
+ /*
+ * Assignment without holding pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock is safe
+ * because there is no concurrency as the object is not published yet.
+ */
pi_state->owner = p;
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&p->pi_lock);
--
2.17.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-06 13:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-06-06 13:31 [v4.9 RT 0/6] futex backports Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-06-06 13:31 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior [this message]
2018-06-06 13:31 ` [PATCH 2/6] futex: Fix more put_pi_state() vs. exit_pi_state_list() races Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-06-06 13:31 ` [PATCH 3/6] futex: Avoid violating the 10th rule of futex Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-06-06 13:31 ` [PATCH 4/6] futex: Fix OWNER_DEAD fixup Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-06-06 13:31 ` [PATCH 5/6] rtmutex: Make rt_mutex_futex_unlock() safe for irq-off callsites Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-06-06 13:31 ` [PATCH 6/6] rcu: Suppress lockdep false-positive ->boost_mtx complaints Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-06-06 18:23 ` [v4.9 RT 0/6] futex backports Steven Rostedt
2018-06-12 17:53 ` Julia Cartwright
2018-06-15 16:11 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-07-09 9:58 ` [PATCH RT 7/6] rcu: Do not include rtmutex_common.h unconditionally Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-07-10 16:53 ` [PATCH RT 8/6] sched, tracing: Fix trace_sched_pi_setprio() for deboosting 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=20180606133131.7747-2-bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--to=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=julia@ni.com \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).