From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: tglx@linutronix.de
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, juri.lelli@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
xlpang@redhat.com, bigeasy@linutronix.de,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
jdesfossez@efficios.com, bristot@redhat.com,
dvhart@infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v4 00/10] FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI wobbles
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 12:02:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170222110244.GP6536@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161213160714.GF3061@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 05:07:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 09:36:38AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > The basic idea is to, like requeue PI, break the rt_mutex_lock() function into
> > pieces, such that we can enqueue the waiter while holding hb->lock, wait for
> > acquisition without hb->lock and can remove the waiter, on failure, while
> > holding hb->lock again.
> >
> > That way, when we drop hb->lock to wait, futex and rt_mutex wait state is
> > consistent.
>
> And of course, there's a hole in...
>
> There is a point in futex_unlock_pi() where we hold neither hb->lock nor
> wait_lock, at that point a futex_lock_pi() that had failed its
> rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock() can sneak in and remove itself, even though
> we saw its waiter, recreating a vraiant of the initial problem.
>
> The below plugs the hole, but its rather fragile in that it relies on
> overlapping critical sections and the specific detail that we call
> rt_mutex_cleanup_proxy_lock() immediately after (re)acquiring hb->lock.
>
> There is another solution, but that's more involved and uglier still.
>
> I'll give it a bit more thought.
>
OK, so after having not thought about this, and then spend the last two
days trying to cram all this nonsense back into my head, I think I have
a slightly simpler option.
In any case, I'll go respin the patch-set and repost.
--- a/kernel/futex.c
+++ b/kernel/futex.c
@@ -1395,7 +1395,18 @@ static int wake_futex_pi(u32 __user *uad
raw_spin_lock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
new_owner = rt_mutex_next_owner(&pi_state->pi_mutex);
- BUG_ON(!new_owner);
+ if (!new_owner) {
+ /*
+ * Since we held neither hb->lock nor wait_lock when coming
+ * into this function, we could have raced with futex_lock_pi()
+ * such that it will have removed the waiter that brought us
+ * here.
+ *
+ * In this case, retry the entire operation.
+ */
+ ret = -EAGAIN;
+ goto out_unlock;
+ }
/*
* We pass it to the next owner. The WAITERS bit is always kept
@@ -2657,8 +2668,8 @@ static int futex_lock_pi(u32 __user *uad
* rt_mutex waitqueue, such that we can keep the hb and rt_mutex
* wait lists consistent.
*/
- if (ret)
- rt_mutex_cleanup_proxy_lock(&q.pi_state->pi_mutex, &rt_waiter);
+ if (ret && !rt_mutex_cleanup_proxy_lock(&q.pi_state->pi_mutex, &rt_waiter))
+ ret = 0;
did_trylock:
/*
@@ -3043,8 +3054,9 @@ static int futex_wait_requeue_pi(u32 __u
debug_rt_mutex_free_waiter(&rt_waiter);
spin_lock(q.lock_ptr);
- if (ret)
- rt_mutex_cleanup_proxy_lock(pi_mutex, &rt_waiter);
+ if (ret && !rt_mutex_cleanup_proxy_lock(pi_mutex, &rt_waiter))
+ ret = 0;
+
/*
* Fixup the pi_state owner and possibly acquire the lock if we
* haven't already.
--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
@@ -1781,16 +1781,29 @@ int rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock(struct rt_m
*
* Clean up the failed lock acquisition as per rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock().
*
+ * Returns:
+ * true - did the cleanup, we done.
+ * false - we acquired the lock after rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock() returned,
+ * caller should disregards its return value.
+ *
* Special API call for PI-futex support
*/
-void rt_mutex_cleanup_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
+bool rt_mutex_cleanup_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter)
{
- raw_spin_lock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
-
- remove_waiter(lock, waiter);
- fixup_rt_mutex_waiters(lock);
+ bool cleanup = false;
+ raw_spin_lock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
+ /*
+ * If we acquired the lock, no cleanup required.
+ */
+ if (rt_mutex_owner(lock) != current) {
+ remove_waiter(lock, waiter);
+ fixup_rt_mutex_waiters(lock);
+ cleanup = true;
+ }
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
+
+ return cleanup;
}
--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex_common.h
+++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex_common.h
@@ -106,11 +106,10 @@ extern void rt_mutex_proxy_unlock(struct
extern int rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter,
struct task_struct *task);
-
extern int rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
struct hrtimer_sleeper *to,
struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter);
-extern void rt_mutex_cleanup_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
+extern bool rt_mutex_cleanup_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter);
extern int rt_mutex_futex_trylock(struct rt_mutex *l);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-22 11:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-12-13 8:36 [PATCH -v4 00/10] FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI wobbles Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-13 8:36 ` [PATCH -v4 01/10] futex: Fix potential use-after-free in FUTEX_REQUEUE_PI Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-16 23:58 ` Darren Hart
2016-12-13 8:36 ` [PATCH -v4 02/10] futex: Add missing error handling to FUTEX_REQUEUE_PI Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-17 0:06 ` Darren Hart
2016-12-17 13:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-18 23:31 ` Darren Hart
2016-12-13 8:36 ` [PATCH -v4 03/10] futex: Cleanup variable names for futex_top_waiter() Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-17 0:13 ` Darren Hart
2017-02-22 14:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-13 8:36 ` [PATCH -v4 04/10] futex: Use smp_store_release() in mark_wake_futex() Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-17 0:50 ` Darren Hart
2017-02-22 14:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-17 0:35 ` Darren Hart
2016-12-13 8:36 ` [PATCH -v4 05/10] futex: Remove rt_mutex_deadlock_account_*() Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-13 8:36 ` [PATCH -v4 06/10] futex,rt_mutex: Provide futex specific rt_mutex API Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-13 8:36 ` [PATCH -v4 07/10] futex: Change locking Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-13 8:36 ` [PATCH -v4 08/10] futex: Rework futex_lock_pi() vs rt_mutex_timed_futex_lock() Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-13 8:36 ` [PATCH -v4 09/10] futex: Remove inconsistent hb/rt_mutex state magic Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-13 8:36 ` [PATCH -v4 10/10] futex: Pull rt_mutex_futex_unlock() out from under hb->lock Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-13 16:07 ` [PATCH -v4 00/10] FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI wobbles Peter Zijlstra
2017-02-22 11:02 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2017-02-22 15:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-01 9:05 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-03-03 9:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-16 23:31 ` Darren Hart
2016-12-17 13:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-18 22:39 ` Darren Hart
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=20170222110244.GP6536@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=dvhart@infradead.org \
--cc=jdesfossez@efficios.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=xlpang@redhat.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox