linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -tip] locking/mutexes: Avoid bogus wakeups after lock stealing

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <53ECEF32.6010706@hp.com>
Date:	Thu, 14 Aug 2014 13:17:38 -0400
From:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
To:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
CC:	peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...nel.org, jason.low2@...com,
	scott.norton@...com, aswin@...com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip] locking/mutexes: Avoid bogus wakeups after lock
 stealing

On 08/14/2014 01:57 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> Mutexes lock-stealing functionality allows another task to
> skip its turn in the wait-queue and atomically acquire the lock.
> This is fine and a nice optimization, however, when releasing
> the mutex, we always wakeup the next task in FIFO order. When
> the lock has been stolen, this leads to wasting waking up a
> task just to immediately realize it cannot acquire the lock
> and just go back to sleep. While in practice this window is
> quite small, it is not about performance or avoid taking the
> wait_lock, but because avoiding bogus wakeups is the right thing
> to do.
>
> In order to deal with the race when potentially missing the
> unlock slowpath (details in the comments), we pessimistically set
> the lock to have waiters. The downside of this is that the task
> that now stole the lock would always have to acquire the mutex in
> its slowpath (as mutex_try_to_acquire() would never succeed.
> However, since this path is rarely called, the cost is really
> never noticed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso<davidlohr@...com>
> ---
> Original thread: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/8/8/37
>
>   kernel/locking/mutex.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 43 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> index dadbf88..4570611 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> @@ -383,12 +383,26 @@ done:
>
>   	return false;
>   }
> +
> +static inline bool mutex_has_owner(struct mutex *lock)
> +{
> +	struct task_struct *owner = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->owner);
> +
> +	return owner != NULL;
> +}
> +
>   #else
> +
>   static bool mutex_optimistic_spin(struct mutex *lock,
>   				  struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx, const bool use_ww_ctx)
>   {
>   	return false;
>   }
> +
> +static inline bool mutex_has_owner(struct mutex *lock)
> +{
> +	return false;
> +}
>   #endif
>
>   __visible __used noinline
> @@ -715,6 +729,35 @@ __mutex_unlock_common_slowpath(struct mutex *lock, int nested)
>   {
>   	unsigned long flags;
>
> +/*
> + * Skipping the mutex_has_owner() check when DEBUG, allows us to
> + * avoid taking the wait_lock in order to do not call mutex_release()
> + * and debug_mutex_unlock() when !DEBUG. This can otherwise result in
> + * hung it a hung task when another one enters the lock's slowpath in
> + * mutex_lock().
> + */
> +#ifndef CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES
> +	/*
> +	 * Abort the wakeup operation if there is an another mutex owner, as the
> +	 * lock was stolen. mutex_unlock() should have cleared the owner field
> +	 * before calling this function. If that field is now set, another task
> +	 * must have acquired the mutex. Note that this is a very tiny window.
> +	 */
> +	if (unlikely(mutex_has_owner(lock))) {
> +		/*
> +		 * Unconditionally set the lock to have waiters. Otherwise
> +		 * we can race with another task that grabbed the mutex via
> +		 * optimistic spinning and sets the lock to 0. When done,
> +		 * the unlock logic never reaches the slowpath, thus never
> +		 * waking the next task in the queue.
> +		 * Furthermore, this is safe as we've already acknowledged
> +		 * the fact that the lock was stolen and now a new owner
> +		 * exists.
> +		 */
> +		atomic_set(&lock->count, -1);
> +		return;
> +	}
> +#endif
>   	/*
>   	 * As a performance measurement, release the lock before doing other
>   	 * wakeup related duties to follow. This allows other tasks to acquire

I still think it is better to do that after spin_lock_mutex(). In 
addition, the atomic_set() is racy. It is better to something like

   if (atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->count, 0, -1) <= 0)
     return;

BTW, the current patch has no performance impact on x86 because 
__mutex_slowpath_needs_to_unlock() is true.

-Longman
--
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/