Date:	Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:42:50 -0700
From:	Darren Hart <dvhltc@...ibm.com>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
CC:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: futex: race in lock and unlock&exit for robust futex with PI?

On 06/23/2010 02:13 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Hi,

Hi Michal,

Thanks for reporting the issue and providing a testcase.

>
> attached you can find a simple test case which fails quite easily on the
> following glibc assert:
> "SharedMutexTest: pthread_mutex_lock.c:289: __pthread_mutex_lock:
>    Assertion `(-(e)) != 3 || !robust' failed." "

I've run runSimple.sh in a tight loop for a couple hours (about 2k 
iterations so far) and haven't seen anything other than "Here we go" 
printed to the console.

I had to add -D_GNU_SOURCE to get it to build on my system (RHEL5.2 + 
2.6.34). Perhaps this is just a difference in the toolchain.

> AFAIU, this assertion says that futex syscall cannot fail with ESRCH
> for robust futex because it should either succeed or fail with
> EOWNERDEAD.

I'll have to think on that and review the libc source. We do need to 
confirm that the assert is even doing the right thing.

>
> We have seen this problem on SLES11 and SLES11SP1 but I was able to
> reproduce it with the 2.6.34 kernel as well.

What kind of system are you seeing this on? I've been running on a 4-way 
x86_64 blade.

> The test case is quite easy.
>
> Executed with a parameter it creates a test file and initializes shared,
> robust pthread mutex (optionaly compile time configured with priority
> inheritance) backed by the mmapped test file. Without a parameter it
> mmaps the file and just locks, unlocks mutex and checks for EOWNERDEAD
> (this should never happen during the test as the process never dies with
> the lock held) in the loop.

Have you found the PI parameter to be required for reproducing the 
error? From the comments below I'm assuming so... just want to be sure.

>
> If I run this application for multiple users in parallel I can see the
> above assertion. However, if priority inheritance is turned off then
> there is no problem. I am not able to reproduce also if the test case is
> run under a single user.
>
> I am using the attached runSimple.sh script to run the test case like
> this:
>
> rm test.file simple
> for i in `seq 10`
> do
> 	sh runSimple.sh
> done
>
> To disable IP just comment out USE_PI variable in the script.
> You need to change USER1 and USER2 variables to match you system. You
> will need to run the script as root if you do not set any special
> setting to run su on behalf of those users.
>
> I have tried to look at futex_{un}lock_pi but it is really hard to
> understand.

*grin* tell me about it...

See Documentation/pi-futex.txt if you haven't already.

> I assume that lookup_pi_state is the one which sets ESRCH
> after it is not able to find the pid of the current owner.
>
> This would suggest that we are racing with the unlock of the current
> lock holder but I don't see how is this possible as both lock and unlock
> paths hold fshared lock for all operations over the lock value. I have
> noticed that the lock path drops fshared if the current holder is dying
> but then it retries the whole process again.
>
> Any advice would be highly appreciated.

If I can reproduce this I should be able to get some trace points in 
there to get a better idea of the execution path leading up to the problem.

This would be a great time to have those futex fault injection patches...


-- 
Darren Hart
IBM Linux Technology Center
Real-Time Linux Team
--
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