The Linux Kernel Mailing List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@kernel.org>
To: "André Almeida" <andrealmeid@igalia.com>,
	"Sebastian Andrzej Siewior" <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
	"Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com>,
	"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"Florian Weimer" <fweimer@redhat.com>,
	"Rich Felker" <dalias@aerifal.cx>,
	"Torvald Riegel" <triegel@redhat.com>,
	"Darren Hart" <dvhart@infradead.org>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@kernel.org>,
	"Davidlohr Bueso" <dave@stgolabs.net>,
	"Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>,
	"Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>,
	"Uros Bizjak" <ubizjak@gmail.com>,
	"Thomas Weißschuh" <linux@weissschuh.net>,
	kernel-dev@igalia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/14] selftests: futex: Add tests for robust unlock within the critical section.
Date: Fri, 29 May 2026 23:27:14 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87cxyd9aa5.ffs@fw13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a11c5dbf-48d9-4014-8daf-b8afbdec32d4@igalia.com>

On Wed, May 27 2026 at 23:55, André Almeida wrote:
> Em 04/04/2026 06:39, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior escreveu:
>> +
>> +			} else if (state == STATE_IN_CS) {
>> +				/*
>> +				 * If the critical section has been entered then
>> +				 * the kernel has to unlock and clean list_op_pending.
>> +				 * On 32bit the pointer is just 32bit wide, the
>> +				 * upper 32bit are cleaned on 64bit.
>> +				 */
>> +				if (is_32bit)
>> +					rhead_val &= 0xffffffff;
>> +
>> +				ASSERT_EQ(rhead_val, 0);
>> +				ASSERT_EQ(lock_val, 0);
>> +			}
>
> It turns out that the test success I saw with my aarch64 implementation 
> was a false positive :/ There's no logic to verify if the code really 
> enters the critical section. If the code just jump over it, the test 
> never checks if lock_val and rhead_val are actually zeroed.
>
>> +
>> +			if (ptrace(PTRACE_SINGLESTEP, child, 0, 0))
>> +				err(1, "PTRACE_SINGLESTEP");
>
> After I fixed my code, the selftest got to an infinity loop (maybe we 
> should add max steps?). The single steps doesn't work for LL/SC locks, 
> like this one:
>
> retry:
> 	ldxr %w[val], %[lock]
> 	cmp %w[tid], %w[val]
> 	bne end
> 	stlxr %w[result], wzr, %[lock]
> 	cbnz %w[result], retry
> end:
>
>
> The single step with ptrace() causes a context switch that clear the 
> exclusive monitor[1], so store fails and the code branches to retry. We 
> need to jump straight to `cbnz %w[result], retry`. I tested to single 
> step with GDB, and it turns outs that it is smart enough to run the code 
> from ldxr to stlxr "atomically", to avoid messing with the exclusive 
> monitor and then it worked as expected.

That's why I put the labels into the ASM so that the test can set
breakpoints at the proper points and check whether the kernel/vdso did
the right thing. Single stepping is not really a good idea because you
can't test the interruption points, which matter correctly.

Thanks,

        tglx

      reply	other threads:[~2026-05-29 21:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-04-02 15:21 [patch V4 00/14] futex: Address the robust futex unlock race for real Thomas Gleixner
2026-04-02 15:21 ` [patch V4 01/14] futex: Move futex task related data into a struct Thomas Gleixner
2026-04-02 15:21 ` [patch V4 02/14] futex: Make futex_mm_init() void Thomas Gleixner
2026-04-02 15:21 ` [patch V4 03/14] futex: Move futex related mm_struct data into a struct Thomas Gleixner
2026-04-09 11:11   ` Nam Cao
2026-04-10 14:20     ` Thomas Gleixner
2026-04-02 15:21 ` [patch V4 04/14] futex: Provide UABI defines for robust list entry modifiers Thomas Gleixner
2026-04-02 15:21 ` [patch V4 05/14] uaccess: Provide unsafe_atomic_store_release_user() Thomas Gleixner
2026-04-02 15:21 ` [patch V4 06/14] x86: Select ARCH_MEMORY_ORDER_TSO Thomas Gleixner
2026-04-02 15:21 ` [patch V4 07/14] futex: Cleanup UAPI defines Thomas Gleixner
2026-04-02 15:21 ` [patch V4 08/14] futex: Add support for unlocking robust futexes Thomas Gleixner
2026-04-02 15:21 ` [patch V4 09/14] futex: Add robust futex unlock IP range Thomas Gleixner
2026-05-28  1:02   ` André Almeida
2026-05-29 21:30     ` Thomas Gleixner
2026-04-02 15:21 ` [patch V4 10/14] futex: Provide infrastructure to plug the non contended robust futex unlock race Thomas Gleixner
2026-05-28  1:08   ` André Almeida
2026-05-29 21:14     ` Thomas Gleixner
2026-04-02 15:21 ` [patch V4 11/14] x86/vdso: Prepare for robust futex unlock support Thomas Gleixner
2026-05-28  1:14   ` André Almeida
2026-04-02 15:22 ` [patch V4 12/14] x86/vdso: Implement __vdso_futex_robust_try_unlock() Thomas Gleixner
2026-04-29  8:44   ` Thomas Weißschuh
2026-05-07  9:29     ` Thomas Gleixner
2026-05-07  9:48       ` Thomas Weißschuh
2026-05-07 16:51         ` Thomas Gleixner
2026-05-29 15:36   ` André Almeida
2026-04-02 15:22 ` [patch V4 13/14] Documentation: futex: Add a note about robust list race condition Thomas Gleixner
2026-04-02 15:22 ` [patch V4 14/14] selftests: futex: Add tests for robust release operations Thomas Gleixner
2026-04-04  9:39 ` [PATCH 15/14] selftests: futex: Add tests for robust unlock within the critical section Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-04-04 20:13   ` Thomas Gleixner
2026-05-22 22:16   ` André Almeida
2026-05-28  2:55   ` André Almeida
2026-05-29 21:27     ` Thomas Gleixner [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=87cxyd9aa5.ffs@fw13 \
    --to=tglx@kernel.org \
    --cc=Liam.Howlett@oracle.com \
    --cc=andrealmeid@igalia.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
    --cc=carlos@redhat.com \
    --cc=dalias@aerifal.cx \
    --cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
    --cc=dvhart@infradead.org \
    --cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
    --cc=kernel-dev@igalia.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@weissschuh.net \
    --cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=triegel@redhat.com \
    --cc=ubizjak@gmail.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