linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] rtmutex Real-Time Linux: Fixing kernel BUG at kernel/locking/rtmutex.c:997!

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: <1428383383.3152.5.camel@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 07 Apr 2015 07:09:43 +0200
From:	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke <tmac@...com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] rtmutex Real-Time Linux: Fixing kernel BUG at
 kernel/locking/rtmutex.c:997!

On Mon, 2015-04-06 at 21:59 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 
> We really should have a rt_spin_trylock_in_irq() and not have the
> below if conditional.
> 
> The paths that will be executed in hard irq context are static. They
> should be labeled as such.

I did it as an explicitly labeled special purpose (naughty) pair.

---
 include/linux/spinlock_rt.h |    2 ++
 kernel/locking/rtmutex.c    |   31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 2 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/include/linux/spinlock_rt.h
+++ b/include/linux/spinlock_rt.h
@@ -27,6 +27,8 @@ extern void __lockfunc rt_spin_unlock_wa
 extern int __lockfunc rt_spin_trylock_irqsave(spinlock_t *lock, unsigned long *flags);
 extern int __lockfunc rt_spin_trylock_bh(spinlock_t *lock);
 extern int __lockfunc rt_spin_trylock(spinlock_t *lock);
+extern int __lockfunc rt_spin_trylock_in_irq(spinlock_t *lock);
+extern void __lockfunc rt_spin_trylock_in_irq_unlock(spinlock_t *lock);
 extern int atomic_dec_and_spin_lock(atomic_t *atomic, spinlock_t *lock);
 
 /*
--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
@@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ static int rt_mutex_real_waiter(struct r
  * supports cmpxchg and if there's no debugging state to be set up
  */
 #if defined(__HAVE_ARCH_CMPXCHG) && !defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_RT_MUTEXES)
-# define rt_mutex_cmpxchg(l,c,n)       (cmpxchg(&l->owner, c, n) == c)
+# define rt_mutex_cmpxchg(l,c,n)       (cmpxchg(&(l)->owner, (c), (n)) == (c))
 static inline void mark_rt_mutex_waiters(struct rt_mutex *lock)
 {
        unsigned long owner, *p = (unsigned long *) &lock->owner;
@@ -1208,6 +1208,35 @@ int __lockfunc rt_spin_trylock_irqsave(s
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(rt_spin_trylock_irqsave);
 
+/*
+ * Special purpose for locks taken in interrupt context: Take and hold
+ * ->wait_lock lest PI catching us with our fingers in the cookie jar.
+ * Do NOT abuse.
+ */
+int __lockfunc rt_spin_trylock_in_irq(spinlock_t *lock)
+{
+       struct task_struct *owner;
+       if (!raw_spin_trylock(&lock->lock.wait_lock))
+               return 0;
+       owner = idle_task(raw_smp_processor_id());
+       if (!(rt_mutex_cmpxchg(&lock->lock, NULL, owner))) {
+               raw_spin_unlock(&lock->lock.wait_lock);
+               return 0;
+       }
+       spin_acquire(&lock->dep_map, 0, 1, _RET_IP_);
+       return 1;
+}
+
+/* ONLY for use with rt_spin_trylock_in_irq(), do NOT abuse. */
+void __lockfunc rt_spin_trylock_in_irq_unlock(spinlock_t *lock)
+{
+       struct task_struct *owner = idle_task(raw_smp_processor_id());
+       /* NOTE: we always pass in '1' for nested, for simplicity */
+       spin_release(&lock->dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_);
+       BUG_ON(!(rt_mutex_cmpxchg(&lock->lock, owner, NULL)));
+       raw_spin_unlock(&lock->lock.wait_lock);
+}
+
 int atomic_dec_and_spin_lock(atomic_t *atomic, spinlock_t *lock)
 {
        /* Subtract 1 from counter unless that drops it to 0 (ie. it was 1) */
--
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/