public inbox for stable@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: keenanat2000@gmail.com,bird@lzu.edu.cn,tglx@kernel.org,tomapufckgml@gmail.com,yifanwucs@gmail.com,yuantan098@gmail.com
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] rtmutex: Use waiter::task instead of current in" failed to apply to 5.10-stable tree
Date: Mon, 04 May 2026 10:52:16 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2026050416-constrain-galore-c174@gregkh> (raw)


The patch below does not apply to the 5.10-stable tree.
If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm
tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit
id to <stable@vger.kernel.org>.

To reproduce the conflict and resubmit, you may use the following commands:

git fetch https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/ linux-5.10.y
git checkout FETCH_HEAD
git cherry-pick -x 3bfdc63936dd4773109b7b8c280c0f3b5ae7d349
# <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.>
git commit -s
git send-email --to '<stable@vger.kernel.org>' --in-reply-to '2026050416-constrain-galore-c174@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 5.10.y' HEAD^..

Possible dependencies:



thanks,

greg k-h

------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------

From 3bfdc63936dd4773109b7b8c280c0f3b5ae7d349 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Keenan Dong <keenanat2000@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2026 16:46:00 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] rtmutex: Use waiter::task instead of current in
 remove_waiter()

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

diff --git a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
index ccaba6148b61..4f386ea6c792 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
@@ -1544,6 +1544,8 @@ static bool rtmutex_spin_on_owner(struct rt_mutex_base *lock,
  *
  * Must be called with lock->wait_lock held and interrupts disabled. It must
  * have just failed to try_to_take_rt_mutex().
+ *
+ * When invoked from rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock() waiter::task != current !
  */
 static void __sched remove_waiter(struct rt_mutex_base *lock,
 				  struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter)
@@ -1551,14 +1553,15 @@ static void __sched remove_waiter(struct rt_mutex_base *lock,
 {
 	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_base *next_lock;
 
 	lockdep_assert_held(&lock->wait_lock);
 
-	raw_spin_lock(&current->pi_lock);
-	rt_mutex_dequeue(lock, waiter);
-	current->pi_blocked_on = NULL;
-	raw_spin_unlock(&current->pi_lock);
+	scoped_guard(raw_spinlock, &waiter_task->pi_lock) {
+		rt_mutex_dequeue(lock, waiter);
+		waiter_task->pi_blocked_on = NULL;
+	}
 
 	/*
 	 * Only update priority if the waiter was the highest priority
@@ -1594,7 +1597,7 @@ static void __sched remove_waiter(struct rt_mutex_base *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);
 }


                 reply	other threads:[~2026-05-04  8:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed

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=2026050416-constrain-galore-c174@gregkh \
    --to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=bird@lzu.edu.cn \
    --cc=keenanat2000@gmail.com \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@kernel.org \
    --cc=tomapufckgml@gmail.com \
    --cc=yifanwucs@gmail.com \
    --cc=yuantan098@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