[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1154456580.25983.25.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:23:00 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Esben Nielsen <nielsen.esben@...glemail.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [-rt] Fix race condition and following BUG in PI-futex
On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 19:46 +0100, Esben Nielsen wrote:
> I ran into the bug on 2.6.17-rt8 with the previous posted patches which
> make pthread_timed_lock() work on UP, but the bug is there without the
> patches - I just can't trigger it - and it is also in the mainline kernel.
>
> The problem is that rt_mutex_next_owner() is used unprotected in
> wake_futex_pi(). At least it isn't probably serialiazed against the next
> owner being signalled or getting a timeout. The only lock, which is
> good enough here, is &pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock, so I added this
> protection.
>
> Esben
>
> kernel/futex.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6.17-rt8/kernel/futex.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.17-rt8.orig/kernel/futex.c
> +++ linux-2.6.17-rt8/kernel/futex.c
> @@ -565,6 +565,7 @@ static int wake_futex_pi(u32 __user *uad
> if (!pi_state)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> + spin_lock(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
> new_owner = rt_mutex_next_owner(&pi_state->pi_mutex);
>
> /*
> @@ -590,15 +591,22 @@ static int wake_futex_pi(u32 __user *uad
> curval = futex_atomic_cmpxchg_inatomic(uaddr, uval, newval);
> dec_preempt_count();
>
> - if (curval == -EFAULT)
> + if (curval == -EFAULT) {
> + spin_unlock(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
> return -EFAULT;
> - if (curval != uval)
> + }
> + if (curval != uval) {
> + spin_unlock(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
> return -EINVAL;
> + }
>
> list_del_init(&pi_state->owner->pi_state_list);
> list_add(&pi_state->list, &new_owner->pi_state_list);
> pi_state->owner = new_owner;
> + atomic_inc(&pi_state->refcount);
There really needs to be a get_pi_state() or some variant. Having to do
a manual atomic_inc is very dangerous.
> + spin_unlock(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
> rt_mutex_unlock(&pi_state->pi_mutex);
> + free_pi_state(pi_state);
And to stay in line with the kernel, perhaps we should rename this to
put_pi_state. We aren't freeing it if there's still references to it.
-- Steve
>
> return 0;
> }
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists