| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20140715231647.592130894@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 16:17:28 -0700
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Brad Mouring <bmouring@...com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
Subject: [PATCH 3.10 30/44] rtmutex: Detect changes in the pi lock chain
3.10-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
commit 82084984383babe728e6e3c9a8e5c46278091315 upstream.
When we walk the lock chain, we drop all locks after each step. So the
lock chain can change under us before we reacquire the locks. That's
harmless in principle as we just follow the wrong lock path. But it
can lead to a false positive in the dead lock detection logic:
T0 holds L0
T0 blocks on L1 held by T1
T1 blocks on L2 held by T2
T2 blocks on L3 held by T3
T4 blocks on L4 held by T4
Now we walk the chain
lock T1 -> lock L2 -> adjust L2 -> unlock T1 ->
lock T2 -> adjust T2 -> drop locks
T2 times out and blocks on L0
Now we continue:
lock T2 -> lock L0 -> deadlock detected, but it's not a deadlock at all.
Brad tried to work around that in the deadlock detection logic itself,
but the more I looked at it the less I liked it, because it's crystal
ball magic after the fact.
We actually can detect a chain change very simple:
lock T1 -> lock L2 -> adjust L2 -> unlock T1 -> lock T2 -> adjust T2 ->
next_lock = T2->pi_blocked_on->lock;
drop locks
T2 times out and blocks on L0
Now we continue:
lock T2 ->
if (next_lock != T2->pi_blocked_on->lock)
return;
So if we detect that T2 is now blocked on a different lock we stop the
chain walk. That's also correct in the following scenario:
lock T1 -> lock L2 -> adjust L2 -> unlock T1 -> lock T2 -> adjust T2 ->
next_lock = T2->pi_blocked_on->lock;
drop locks
T3 times out and drops L3
T2 acquires L3 and blocks on L4 now
Now we continue:
lock T2 ->
if (next_lock != T2->pi_blocked_on->lock)
return;
We don't have to follow up the chain at that point, because T2
propagated our priority up to T4 already.
[ Folded a cleanup patch from peterz ]
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Reported-by: Brad Mouring <bmouring@...com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140605152801.930031935@linutronix.de
Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
kernel/rtmutex.c | 74 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 59 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/rtmutex.c
+++ b/kernel/rtmutex.c
@@ -142,6 +142,11 @@ static void rt_mutex_adjust_prio(struct
*/
int max_lock_depth = 1024;
+static inline struct rt_mutex *task_blocked_on_lock(struct task_struct *p)
+{
+ return p->pi_blocked_on ? p->pi_blocked_on->lock : NULL;
+}
+
/*
* Adjust the priority chain. Also used for deadlock detection.
* Decreases task's usage by one - may thus free the task.
@@ -150,6 +155,7 @@ int max_lock_depth = 1024;
static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(struct task_struct *task,
int deadlock_detect,
struct rt_mutex *orig_lock,
+ struct rt_mutex *next_lock,
struct rt_mutex_waiter *orig_waiter,
struct task_struct *top_task)
{
@@ -208,6 +214,18 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
goto out_unlock_pi;
/*
+ * We dropped all locks after taking a refcount on @task, so
+ * the task might have moved on in the lock chain or even left
+ * the chain completely and blocks now on an unrelated lock or
+ * on @orig_lock.
+ *
+ * We stored the lock on which @task was blocked in @next_lock,
+ * so we can detect the chain change.
+ */
+ if (next_lock != waiter->lock)
+ goto out_unlock_pi;
+
+ /*
* Drop out, when the task has no waiters. Note,
* top_waiter can be NULL, when we are in the deboosting
* mode!
@@ -293,11 +311,26 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
__rt_mutex_adjust_prio(task);
}
+ /*
+ * Check whether the task which owns the current lock is pi
+ * blocked itself. If yes we store a pointer to the lock for
+ * the lock chain change detection above. After we dropped
+ * task->pi_lock next_lock cannot be dereferenced anymore.
+ */
+ next_lock = task_blocked_on_lock(task);
+
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags);
top_waiter = rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock);
raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
+ /*
+ * We reached the end of the lock chain. Stop right here. No
+ * point to go back just to figure that out.
+ */
+ if (!next_lock)
+ goto out_put_task;
+
if (!detect_deadlock && waiter != top_waiter)
goto out_put_task;
@@ -408,8 +441,9 @@ static int task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(struc
{
struct task_struct *owner = rt_mutex_owner(lock);
struct rt_mutex_waiter *top_waiter = waiter;
- unsigned long flags;
+ struct rt_mutex *next_lock;
int chain_walk = 0, res;
+ unsigned long flags;
/*
* Early deadlock detection. We really don't want the task to
@@ -442,20 +476,28 @@ static int task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(struc
if (!owner)
return 0;
+ raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&owner->pi_lock, flags);
if (waiter == rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock)) {
- raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&owner->pi_lock, flags);
plist_del(&top_waiter->pi_list_entry, &owner->pi_waiters);
plist_add(&waiter->pi_list_entry, &owner->pi_waiters);
__rt_mutex_adjust_prio(owner);
if (owner->pi_blocked_on)
chain_walk = 1;
- raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&owner->pi_lock, flags);
- }
- else if (debug_rt_mutex_detect_deadlock(waiter, detect_deadlock))
+ } else if (debug_rt_mutex_detect_deadlock(waiter, detect_deadlock)) {
chain_walk = 1;
+ }
- if (!chain_walk)
+ /* Store the lock on which owner is blocked or NULL */
+ next_lock = task_blocked_on_lock(owner);
+
+ raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&owner->pi_lock, flags);
+ /*
+ * Even if full deadlock detection is on, if the owner is not
+ * blocked itself, we can avoid finding this out in the chain
+ * walk.
+ */
+ if (!chain_walk || !next_lock)
return 0;
/*
@@ -467,8 +509,8 @@ static int task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(struc
raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
- res = rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(owner, detect_deadlock, lock, waiter,
- task);
+ res = rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(owner, detect_deadlock, lock,
+ next_lock, waiter, task);
raw_spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock);
@@ -517,8 +559,8 @@ static void remove_waiter(struct rt_mute
{
int first = (waiter == rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock));
struct task_struct *owner = rt_mutex_owner(lock);
+ struct rt_mutex *next_lock = NULL;
unsigned long flags;
- int chain_walk = 0;
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(¤t->pi_lock, flags);
plist_del(&waiter->list_entry, &lock->wait_list);
@@ -542,15 +584,15 @@ static void remove_waiter(struct rt_mute
}
__rt_mutex_adjust_prio(owner);
- if (owner->pi_blocked_on)
- chain_walk = 1;
+ /* Store the lock on which owner is blocked or NULL */
+ next_lock = task_blocked_on_lock(owner);
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&owner->pi_lock, flags);
}
WARN_ON(!plist_node_empty(&waiter->pi_list_entry));
- if (!chain_walk)
+ if (!next_lock)
return;
/* gets dropped in rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain()! */
@@ -558,7 +600,7 @@ static void remove_waiter(struct rt_mute
raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
- rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(owner, 0, lock, NULL, current);
+ rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(owner, 0, lock, next_lock, NULL, current);
raw_spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock);
}
@@ -571,6 +613,7 @@ static void remove_waiter(struct rt_mute
void rt_mutex_adjust_pi(struct task_struct *task)
{
struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter;
+ struct rt_mutex *next_lock;
unsigned long flags;
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&task->pi_lock, flags);
@@ -580,12 +623,13 @@ void rt_mutex_adjust_pi(struct task_stru
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags);
return;
}
-
+ next_lock = waiter->lock;
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags);
/* gets dropped in rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain()! */
get_task_struct(task);
- rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(task, 0, NULL, NULL, task);
+
+ rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(task, 0, NULL, next_lock, NULL, task);
}
/**
--
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