public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org,
	Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
	x86@kernel.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: [PATCH -v2] locking/mutex: Clarify that mutex_unlock(), and most other sleeping locks, can still use the lock object after it's unlocked
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 10:00:12 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZZu5nBicXKwgYrsg@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZZu2F8KNygWzWVY7@gmail.com>


* Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:

> > > +Releasing a mutex is not an atomic operation: Once a mutex release operation
> > 
> > I still object to this confusing usage of atomic. Also all this also 
> > applies to all sleeping locks, rwsem etc. I don't see why we need to 
> > special case mutex here.
> > 
> > Also completion_done() has an explicit lock+unlock on wait.lock to deal 
> > with this there.
> 
> Fair enough - but Jan's original observation stands: mutexes are the 
> sleeping locks most similar to spinlocks, so the locking & object 
> lifetime pattern that works under spinlocks cannot be carried over to 
> mutexes in all cases, and it's fair to warn about this pitfall.
> 
> We single out mutex_lock(), because they are the most similar in behavior 
> to spinlocks, and because this concern isn't hypothethical, it has been 
> observed in the wild with mutex users.
> 
> How about the language in the attached patch?

Refined the language a bit more in the -v2 patch below.

Thanks,

	Ingo

=============>
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 09:31:16 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] locking/mutex: Clarify that mutex_unlock(), and most other sleeping locks, can still use the lock object after it's unlocked

Clarify the mutex lock lifetime rules a bit more.

Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231201121808.GL3818@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net
---
 Documentation/locking/mutex-design.rst | 24 ++++++++++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/locking/mutex-design.rst b/Documentation/locking/mutex-design.rst
index 7572339b2f12..7c30b4aa5e28 100644
--- a/Documentation/locking/mutex-design.rst
+++ b/Documentation/locking/mutex-design.rst
@@ -101,12 +101,24 @@ features that make lock debugging easier and faster:
     - Detects multi-task circular deadlocks and prints out all affected
       locks and tasks (and only those tasks).
 
-Releasing a mutex is not an atomic operation: Once a mutex release operation
-has begun, another context may be able to acquire the mutex before the release
-operation has fully completed. The mutex user must ensure that the mutex is not
-destroyed while a release operation is still in progress - in other words,
-callers of mutex_unlock() must ensure that the mutex stays alive until
-mutex_unlock() has returned.
+Mutexes - and most other sleeping locks like rwsems - do not provide an
+implicit reference for the memory they occupy, which reference is released
+with mutex_unlock().
+
+[ This is in contrast with spin_unlock() [or completion_done()], which
+  APIs can be used to guarantee that the memory is not touched by the
+  lock implementation after spin_unlock()/completion_done() releases
+  the lock. ]
+
+mutex_unlock() may access the mutex structure even after it has internally
+released the lock already - so it's not safe for another context to
+acquire the mutex and assume that the mutex_unlock() context is not using
+the structure anymore.
+
+The mutex user must ensure that the mutex is not destroyed while a
+release operation is still in progress - in other words, callers of
+mutex_unlock() must ensure that the mutex stays alive until mutex_unlock()
+has returned.
 
 Interfaces
 ----------

  reply	other threads:[~2024-01-08  9:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-11-30 20:48 [PATCH] locking: Document that mutex_unlock() is non-atomic Jann Horn
2023-11-30 21:53 ` Waiman Long
2023-11-30 22:24   ` Jann Horn
2023-11-30 23:56     ` Waiman Long
2023-12-01 10:33     ` [PATCH -v2] locking/mutex: " Ingo Molnar
2023-12-02  1:37       ` Bagas Sanjaya
2023-12-01 10:20   ` [PATCH] locking: " Ingo Molnar
2023-12-01  0:33 ` Waiman Long
2023-12-01 15:01   ` Jann Horn
     [not found]     ` <a9e19ad0-9a27-4885-a6ac-bebd3e997b02@redhat.com>
2023-12-01 16:03       ` Jann Horn
2023-12-01 18:12     ` David Laight
2023-12-01 18:18       ` Jann Horn
     [not found]         ` <1bcee696-d751-413c-a2ec-4a8480bae00b@redhat.com>
     [not found]           ` <780e652ff52044d4a213cacbd9276cf8@AcuMS.aculab.com>
2023-12-01 19:15             ` Waiman Long
2023-12-02 15:51               ` David Laight
2023-12-02 22:39                 ` Waiman Long
2023-12-01  9:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-12-01 15:58   ` Jann Horn
2023-12-01 10:44 ` [tip: locking/core] locking/mutex: " tip-bot2 for Jann Horn
2023-12-01 12:18   ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-01-08  8:45     ` [PATCH] locking/mutex: Clarify that mutex_unlock(), and most other sleeping locks, cannot be used to reference-count objects Ingo Molnar
2024-01-08  9:00       ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2024-01-08 15:28       ` Jann Horn
2024-01-08  9:01     ` [tip: locking/core] locking/mutex: Clarify that mutex_unlock(), and most other sleeping locks, can still use the lock object after it's unlocked tip-bot2 for Ingo Molnar

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=ZZu5nBicXKwgYrsg@gmail.com \
    --to=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=jannh@google.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=x86@kernel.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