[PATCH 4.4 06/11] futex: Futex_unlock_pi() determinism

Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-08-08T07:23:48Z

From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>

[ Upstream commit bebe5b514345f09be2c15e414d076b02ecb9cce8 ]

The problem with returning -EAGAIN when the waiter state mismatches is that
it becomes very hard to proof a bounded execution time on the
operation. And seeing that this is a RT operation, this is somewhat
important.

While in practise; given the previous patch; it will be very unlikely to
ever really take more than one or two rounds, proving so becomes rather
hard.

However, now that modifying wait_list is done while holding both hb->lock
and wait_lock, the scenario can be avoided entirely by acquiring wait_lock
while still holding hb-lock. Doing a hand-over, without leaving a hole.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: juri.lelli@arm.com
Cc: bigeasy@linutronix.de
Cc: xlpang@redhat.com
Cc: rostedt@goodmis.org
Cc: mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com
Cc: jdesfossez@efficios.com
Cc: dvhart@infradead.org
Cc: bristot@redhat.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170322104152.112378812@infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Joe Korty <joe.korty@concurrent-rt.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
---
kernel/futex.c | 24 +++++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

--- a/kernel/futex.c
+++ b/kernel/futex.c
@@ -1555,15 +1555,10 @@ static int wake_futex_pi(u32 __user *uad
WAKE_Q(wake_q);
int ret = 0;

- raw_spin_lock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
new_owner = rt_mutex_next_owner(&pi_state->pi_mutex);
- if (!new_owner) {
+ if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!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 we might observe @this futex_q waiter, but the
- * rt_mutex's wait_list can be empty (either still, or again,
- * depending on which side we land).
+ * As per the comment in futex_unlock_pi() this should not happen.
*
* When this happens, give up our locks and try again, giving
* the futex_lock_pi() instance time to complete, either by
@@ -3020,15 +3015,18 @@ retry:
if (pi_state->owner != current)
goto out_unlock;

+ get_pi_state(pi_state);
/*
- * Grab a reference on the pi_state and drop hb->lock.
+ * Since modifying the wait_list is done while holding both
+ * hb->lock and wait_lock, holding either is sufficient to
+ * observe it.
*
- * The reference ensures pi_state lives, dropping the hb->lock
- * is tricky.. wake_futex_pi() will take rt_mutex::wait_lock to
- * close the races against futex_lock_pi(), but in case of
- * _any_ fail we'll abort and retry the whole deal.
+ * By taking wait_lock while still holding hb->lock, we ensure
+ * there is no point where we hold neither; and therefore
+ * wake_futex_pi() must observe a state consistent with what we
+ * observed.
*/
- get_pi_state(pi_state);
+ raw_spin_lock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
spin_unlock(&hb->lock);

ret = wake_futex_pi(uaddr, uval, pi_state);