From: Waiman Long <llong@redhat.com>
To: buckzhang1212@yeah.net, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/mutex:add MUTEX_CHCEK_INIT to detect uninitialized mutex lock
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2025 23:10:22 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <dbba6b72-d270-4b7e-bb21-39ac8a46864a@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250924022500.2577-1-buckzhang1212@yeah.net>
On 9/23/25 10:25 PM, buckzhang1212@yeah.net wrote:
> From: "buck.zhang" <buckzhang1212@yeah.net>
>
> Here is a kernel exception about mutex and I can recreate it stably.
> First we define a custome struct that includes a mutex lock.
> Then allocate this struct by kmalloc without calling mutex_init.
> Finally when multiple tasks call mutex_lock together,kernel will panic.
> But Kernel is good if only one task call this mutex at the same time.
> the exception reason is that lock->wait_list is an invalid kernel list.
> kernel crash log:
> Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 0000000
> pc: __mutex_add_waiter+0x68/0x160
> lr: __mutex_add_waiter+0x128/0x160
> sp: ffffffc0866f3ac0
> x29: ffffffc0866f3ad0 x28: ffffff8095148000 x27: 0000000000000000
> x2: ffffffc0866f3b18 x1 : 0000000000000000 x0 : 0000000000000000
> Call trace:
> __mutex_add_waiter+0x68/0x160
> __mutex_lock+0x48c/0x119c
> __mutex_lock_slowpath+0x1c/0x2c
> mutex_lock+0x48/0x144
> Test case:
> struct chip_mutex {
> struct mutex tmutex;
> };
> static void work_handler1(struct chip_mutex *cmutex)
> {
> mutex_lock(&(cmutex->tmutex));
> }
> static void work_handler2(struct chip_mutex *cmutex)
> {
> mutex_lock(&(cmutex->tmutex));
> }
> static void chip_tmutex(void)
> {
> struct chip_mutex *cmutex;
> cmutex = kzalloc(sizeof(struct chip_mutex),GFP_KERNEL);
> work_handler1(cmutex);
> ------
> work_handler2(cmutex);
> }
>
> Signed-off-by: buck.zhang <buckzhang1212@yeah.net>
A mutex must be properly initialized before it can be used. The kernel
panic you listed above is expected and the panic itself indicates that
the code is wrong.
> ---
> kernel/locking/mutex.c | 12 ++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> index de7d6702c..8fbe858c8 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> @@ -42,6 +42,16 @@
> #else
> # define MUTEX_WARN_ON(cond)
> #endif
> +#define MUTEX_CHCEK_INIT(lock) mutex_check_waitlist(lock)
> +static void mutex_check_waitlist(struct mutex *lock)
> +{
> + struct list_head *list = &lock->wait_list;
> +
> + if ((unsigned long)list->next < PAGE_OFFSET) {
> + pr_err("BUG: mutex lock is uninitialized,wait_list is Error\n");
> + MUTEX_WARN_ON("mutex lock is uninitialized");
> + }
> +}
>
> void
> __mutex_init(struct mutex *lock, const char *name, struct lock_class_key *key)
> @@ -269,6 +279,7 @@ static void __sched __mutex_lock_slowpath(struct mutex *lock);
> void __sched mutex_lock(struct mutex *lock)
> {
> might_sleep();
> + MUTEX_CHCEK_INIT(lock);
>
> if (!__mutex_trylock_fast(lock))
> __mutex_lock_slowpath(lock);
This check has provided no additional value and it slows down the
locking fast path.
NACK
> @@ -991,6 +1002,7 @@ __mutex_lock_interruptible_slowpath(struct mutex *lock);
> int __sched mutex_lock_interruptible(struct mutex *lock)
> {
> might_sleep();
> + MUTEX_CHCEK_INIT(lock);
>
> if (__mutex_trylock_fast(lock))
> return 0;
> @@ -1015,6 +1027,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(mutex_lock_interruptible);
> int __sched mutex_lock_killable(struct mutex *lock)
> {
> might_sleep();
> + MUTEX_CHCEK_INIT(lock);
>
> if (__mutex_trylock_fast(lock))
> return 0;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-09-24 3:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-09-24 2:25 [PATCH] locking/mutex:add MUTEX_CHCEK_INIT to detect uninitialized mutex lock buckzhang1212
2025-09-24 3:10 ` Waiman Long [this message]
2025-09-24 6:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
[not found] ` <377cba8b.2bd3a.19979cf5b04.Coremail.buckzhang1212@yeah.net>
2025-09-24 14:22 ` Waiman Long
2025-09-24 16:15 ` kernel test robot
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=dbba6b72-d270-4b7e-bb21-39ac8a46864a@redhat.com \
--to=llong@redhat.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=buckzhang1212@yeah.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=will@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