* [STABLE v5.10 1/2] rtmutex: Use waiter::task instead of current in remove_waiter()
@ 2026-07-21 7:54 Lee Jones
2026-07-21 7:54 ` [STABLE v5.10 2/2] locking/rtmutex: Skip remove_waiter() when waiter is not enqueued Lee Jones
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Lee Jones @ 2026-07-21 7:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lee, Peter Zijlstra, Ingo Molnar, Will Deacon, Steven Rostedt,
Lai Jiangshan, Thomas Gleixner, Keenan Dong, linux-kernel
Cc: stable, Yuan Tan, Yifan Wu, Juefei Pu, Xin Liu,
Greg Kroah-Hartman
From: Keenan Dong <keenanat2000@gmail.com>
commit 3bfdc63936dd4773109b7b8c280c0f3b5ae7d349 upstream.
remove_waiter() is used by the slowlock paths, but it is also used for
proxy-lock rollback in rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock() when invoked from
futex_requeue().
In the latter case waiter::task is not current, but remove_waiter()
operates on current for the dequeue operation. That results in several
problems:
1) the rbtree dequeue happens without waiter::task::pi_lock being held
2) the waiter task's pi_blocked_on state is not cleared, which leaves a
dangling pointer primed for UAF around.
3) rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain() operates on the wrong top priority waiter
task
Use waiter::task instead of current in all related operations in
remove_waiter() to cure those problems.
[ tglx: Fixup rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(), add a comment and amend the
changelog ]
Fixes: 8161239a8bcc ("rtmutex: Simplify PI algorithm and make highest prio task get lock")
Reported-by: Yuan Tan <yuantan098@gmail.com>
Reported-by: Yifan Wu <yifanwucs@gmail.com>
Reported-by: Juefei Pu <tomapufckgml@gmail.com>
Reported-by: Xin Liu <bird@lzu.edu.cn>
Signed-off-by: Keenan Dong <keenanat2000@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@kernel.org>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
(cherry picked from commit d8cce4773c2b23d819baf5abedc62f7b430e8745)
[Lee: Backported to linux-5.10.y from linux-6.1.y]
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>
---
kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 11 +++++++----
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
index c6a2dafd4a3b..2ab2d6cce004 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
@@ -1061,20 +1061,23 @@ static void mark_wakeup_next_waiter(struct wake_q_head *wake_q,
*
* Must be called with lock->wait_lock held and interrupts disabled. I must
* have just failed to try_to_take_rt_mutex().
+ *
+ * When invoked from rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock() waiter::task != current !
*/
static void remove_waiter(struct rt_mutex *lock,
struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter)
{
bool is_top_waiter = (waiter == rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock));
struct task_struct *owner = rt_mutex_owner(lock);
+ struct task_struct *waiter_task = waiter->task;
struct rt_mutex *next_lock;
lockdep_assert_held(&lock->wait_lock);
- raw_spin_lock(¤t->pi_lock);
+ raw_spin_lock(&waiter_task->pi_lock);
rt_mutex_dequeue(lock, waiter);
- current->pi_blocked_on = NULL;
- raw_spin_unlock(¤t->pi_lock);
+ waiter_task->pi_blocked_on = NULL;
+ raw_spin_unlock(&waiter_task->pi_lock);
/*
* Only update priority if the waiter was the highest priority
@@ -1110,7 +1113,7 @@ static void remove_waiter(struct rt_mutex *lock,
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(owner, RT_MUTEX_MIN_CHAINWALK, lock,
- next_lock, NULL, current);
+ next_lock, NULL, waiter_task);
raw_spin_lock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
}
--
2.55.0.229.g6434b31f56-goog
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread* [STABLE v5.10 2/2] locking/rtmutex: Skip remove_waiter() when waiter is not enqueued
2026-07-21 7:54 [STABLE v5.10 1/2] rtmutex: Use waiter::task instead of current in remove_waiter() Lee Jones
@ 2026-07-21 7:54 ` Lee Jones
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Lee Jones @ 2026-07-21 7:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lee, Peter Zijlstra, Ingo Molnar, Will Deacon, Steven Rostedt,
Lai Jiangshan, Keenan Dong, Thomas Gleixner, linux-kernel
Cc: stable, Davidlohr Bueso, syzbot+78147abe6c524f183ee9, Sasha Levin,
Greg Kroah-Hartman
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
[ Upstream commit 40a25d59e85b3c8709ac2424d44f65610467871e ]
syzbot triggered the following splat in remove_waiter() via
FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE_PI:
KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000a88-0x0000000000000a8f]
class_raw_spinlock_constructor
remove_waiter+0x159/0x1200 kernel/locking/rtmutex.c:1561
rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock+0x103/0x120
futex_requeue+0x10e4/0x20d0
__x64_sys_futex+0x34f/0x4d0
task_blocks_on_rt_mutex() does not arm the waiter upon deadlock detection,
leaving waiter->task nil, where 3bfdc63936dd ("rtmutex: Use waiter::task instead
of current in remove_waiter()") made this fatal.
Furthermore, rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock() should not be calling into remove_waiter()
upon a successfully grabbing the rtmutex. 1a1fb985f2e2 ("futex: Handle early deadlock
return correctly"), moved the remove_waiter() out of __rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock()
(where 'ret' was only ever 0 or < 0) into the wrapper. Tighten this check to
account for try_to_take_rt_mutex().
Fixes: 3bfdc63936dd ("rtmutex: Use waiter::task instead of current in remove_waiter()")
Reported-by: syzbot+78147abe6c524f183ee9@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@kernel.org>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/69f114ac.050a0220.ac8b.0003.GAE@google.com/
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260507112913.1019537-1-dave@stgolabs.net
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
(cherry picked from commit 4afda3a1da02129568a3a2f1898aa13e6763bcba)
[Lee: Backported to linux-5.10.y from linux-6.1.y]
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>
---
kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
index 2ab2d6cce004..9cfe7f0aa04e 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
@@ -1074,6 +1074,9 @@ static void remove_waiter(struct rt_mutex *lock,
lockdep_assert_held(&lock->wait_lock);
+ if (!waiter_task) /* never enqueued */
+ return;
+
raw_spin_lock(&waiter_task->pi_lock);
rt_mutex_dequeue(lock, waiter);
waiter_task->pi_blocked_on = NULL;
@@ -1803,7 +1806,7 @@ int rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
raw_spin_lock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
ret = __rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock(lock, waiter, task);
- if (unlikely(ret))
+ if (unlikely(ret < 0))
remove_waiter(lock, waiter);
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
--
2.55.0.229.g6434b31f56-goog
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-07-21 7:55 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2026-07-21 7:54 [STABLE v5.10 1/2] rtmutex: Use waiter::task instead of current in remove_waiter() Lee Jones
2026-07-21 7:54 ` [STABLE v5.10 2/2] locking/rtmutex: Skip remove_waiter() when waiter is not enqueued Lee Jones
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox