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: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1601142036260.3575@nanos>
Date:	Thu, 14 Jan 2016 20:47:41 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc:	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: timers: HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order detected

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 06:43:16PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Right. We have the pattern 
> > 
> >      rcu_read_lock();
> >      x = lookup();
> >      if (x)
> > 	   keep_hold(x)
> >      rcu_read_unlock();
> >      return x;
> > 
> > all over the place. Now that keep_hold() can be everything from a refcount to
> > a spinlock and I'm not sure that we can force stuff depending on the mechanism
> > to be completely symetric. So we are probably better off by making that rcu
> > unlock machinery more robust.
> 
> OK.  If I read the lockdep reports correctly, the issue occurs
> when rcu_read_unlock_special() finds that it needs to unboost,
> which means doing an rt_mutex_unlock().  This is done outside of
> rcu_read_unlock_special()'s irq-disabled region, but of course the caller
> might have disabled irqs.
> 
> If I remember correctly, disabling irqs across rt_mutex_unlock() gets
> me lockdep splats.

That shouldn't be the case. The splats come from this scenario:

CPU0 	       	      	    CPU1
rtmutex_lock(rcu)		    
  raw_spin_lock(&rcu->lock)
			    rcu_read_lock()
Interrupt		    spin_lock_irq(some->lock);
			    rcu_read_unlock()
			      rcu_read_unlock_special()
			        rtmutex_unlock(rcu)
				  raw_spin_lock(&rcu->lock)
  spin_lock(some->lock)

Now we dead locked.
 
> I could imagine having a per-CPU pointer to rt_mutex that
> rcu_read_unlock() sets, and that is checked at every point that irqs
> are enabled, with a call to rt_mutex_unlock() if that pointer is non-NULL.
> 
> But perhaps you had something else in mind?

We can solve that issue by taking rtmutex->wait_lock with irqsave. So the
above becomes:

CPU0				CPU1
rtmutex_lock(rcu)		    
  raw_spin_lock_irq(&rcu->lock)
				rcu_read_lock()
		    	    	spin_lock_irq(some->lock);
			    	rcu_read_unlock()
				  rcu_read_unlock_special()
			          rtmutex_unlock(rcu)
				    raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rcu->lock, flags)
  raw_spin_unlock_irq(&rcu->lock)
Interrupt			    ...
  spin_lock(some->lock)		    raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rcu->lock, flags)
				...
		    	    	spin_unlock_irq(some->lock);
				
Untested patch below.

Thanks,

	tglx

8<-------------------------

Subject: rtmutex: Make wait_lock irq safe
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 11:25:38 +0100

Add some blurb here.

Not-Yet-Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
---
 kernel/futex.c           |   18 +++----
 kernel/locking/rtmutex.c |  111 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
 2 files changed, 69 insertions(+), 60 deletions(-)

--- a/kernel/futex.c
+++ b/kernel/futex.c
@@ -1226,7 +1226,7 @@ static int wake_futex_pi(u32 __user *uad
 	if (pi_state->owner != current)
 		return -EINVAL;
 
-	raw_spin_lock(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
+	raw_spin_lock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
 	new_owner = rt_mutex_next_owner(&pi_state->pi_mutex);
 
 	/*
@@ -1252,22 +1252,22 @@ static int wake_futex_pi(u32 __user *uad
 	else if (curval != uval)
 		ret = -EINVAL;
 	if (ret) {
-		raw_spin_unlock(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
+		raw_spin_unlock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
 		return ret;
 	}
 
-	raw_spin_lock_irq(&pi_state->owner->pi_lock);
+	raw_spin_lock(&pi_state->owner->pi_lock);
 	WARN_ON(list_empty(&pi_state->list));
 	list_del_init(&pi_state->list);
-	raw_spin_unlock_irq(&pi_state->owner->pi_lock);
+	raw_spin_unlock(&pi_state->owner->pi_lock);
 
-	raw_spin_lock_irq(&new_owner->pi_lock);
+	raw_spin_lock(&new_owner->pi_lock);
 	WARN_ON(!list_empty(&pi_state->list));
 	list_add(&pi_state->list, &new_owner->pi_state_list);
 	pi_state->owner = new_owner;
-	raw_spin_unlock_irq(&new_owner->pi_lock);
+	raw_spin_unlock(&new_owner->pi_lock);
 
-	raw_spin_unlock(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
+	raw_spin_unlock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
 
 	deboost = rt_mutex_futex_unlock(&pi_state->pi_mutex, &wake_q);
 
@@ -2162,11 +2162,11 @@ static int fixup_owner(u32 __user *uaddr
 		 * we returned due to timeout or signal without taking the
 		 * rt_mutex. Too late.
 		 */
-		raw_spin_lock(&q->pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
+		raw_spin_lock_irq(&q->pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
 		owner = rt_mutex_owner(&q->pi_state->pi_mutex);
 		if (!owner)
 			owner = rt_mutex_next_owner(&q->pi_state->pi_mutex);
-		raw_spin_unlock(&q->pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
+		raw_spin_unlock_irq(&q->pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
 		ret = fixup_pi_state_owner(uaddr, q, owner);
 		goto out;
 	}
--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
@@ -99,13 +99,14 @@ static inline void mark_rt_mutex_waiters
  * 2) Drop lock->wait_lock
  * 3) Try to unlock the lock with cmpxchg
  */
-static inline bool unlock_rt_mutex_safe(struct rt_mutex *lock)
+static inline bool unlock_rt_mutex_safe(struct rt_mutex *lock,
+					unsigned long flags)
 	__releases(lock->wait_lock)
 {
 	struct task_struct *owner = rt_mutex_owner(lock);
 
 	clear_rt_mutex_waiters(lock);
-	raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
+	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
 	/*
 	 * If a new waiter comes in between the unlock and the cmpxchg
 	 * we have two situations:
@@ -147,11 +148,12 @@ static inline void mark_rt_mutex_waiters
 /*
  * Simple slow path only version: lock->owner is protected by lock->wait_lock.
  */
-static inline bool unlock_rt_mutex_safe(struct rt_mutex *lock)
+static inline bool unlock_rt_mutex_safe(struct rt_mutex *lock,
+					unsigned long flags)
 	__releases(lock->wait_lock)
 {
 	lock->owner = NULL;
-	raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
+	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
 	return true;
 }
 #endif
@@ -591,7 +593,7 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
 		/*
 		 * No requeue[7] here. Just release @task [8]
 		 */
-		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags);
+		raw_spin_unlock(&task->pi_lock);
 		put_task_struct(task);
 
 		/*
@@ -599,14 +601,14 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
 		 * If there is no owner of the lock, end of chain.
 		 */
 		if (!rt_mutex_owner(lock)) {
-			raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
+			raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
 			return 0;
 		}
 
 		/* [10] Grab the next task, i.e. owner of @lock */
 		task = rt_mutex_owner(lock);
 		get_task_struct(task);
-		raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&task->pi_lock, flags);
+		raw_spin_lock(&task->pi_lock);
 
 		/*
 		 * No requeue [11] here. We just do deadlock detection.
@@ -621,8 +623,8 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
 		top_waiter = rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock);
 
 		/* [13] Drop locks */
-		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags);
-		raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
+		raw_spin_unlock(&task->pi_lock);
+		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
 
 		/* If owner is not blocked, end of chain. */
 		if (!next_lock)
@@ -643,7 +645,7 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
 	rt_mutex_enqueue(lock, waiter);
 
 	/* [8] Release the task */
-	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags);
+	raw_spin_unlock(&task->pi_lock, flags);
 	put_task_struct(task);
 
 	/*
@@ -661,14 +663,14 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
 		 */
 		if (prerequeue_top_waiter != rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock))
 			wake_up_process(rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock)->task);
-		raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
+		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
 		return 0;
 	}
 
 	/* [10] Grab the next task, i.e. the owner of @lock */
 	task = rt_mutex_owner(lock);
 	get_task_struct(task);
-	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&task->pi_lock, flags);
+	raw_spin_lock(&task->pi_lock);
 
 	/* [11] requeue the pi waiters if necessary */
 	if (waiter == rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock)) {
@@ -722,8 +724,8 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
 	top_waiter = rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock);
 
 	/* [13] Drop the locks */
-	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags);
-	raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
+	raw_spin_unlock(&task->pi_lock);
+	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
 
 	/*
 	 * Make the actual exit decisions [12], based on the stored
@@ -766,8 +768,6 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
 static int try_to_take_rt_mutex(struct rt_mutex *lock, struct task_struct *task,
 				struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter)
 {
-	unsigned long flags;
-
 	/*
 	 * Before testing whether we can acquire @lock, we set the
 	 * RT_MUTEX_HAS_WAITERS bit in @lock->owner. This forces all
@@ -852,7 +852,7 @@ static int try_to_take_rt_mutex(struct r
 	 * case, but conditionals are more expensive than a redundant
 	 * store.
 	 */
-	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&task->pi_lock, flags);
+	raw_spin_lock(&task->pi_lock);
 	task->pi_blocked_on = NULL;
 	/*
 	 * Finish the lock acquisition. @task is the new owner. If
@@ -861,7 +861,7 @@ static int try_to_take_rt_mutex(struct r
 	 */
 	if (rt_mutex_has_waiters(lock))
 		rt_mutex_enqueue_pi(task, rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock));
-	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags);
+	raw_spin_unlock(&task->pi_lock);
 
 takeit:
 	/* We got the lock. */
@@ -894,7 +894,6 @@ static int task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(struc
 	struct rt_mutex_waiter *top_waiter = waiter;
 	struct rt_mutex *next_lock;
 	int chain_walk = 0, res;
-	unsigned long flags;
 
 	/*
 	 * Early deadlock detection. We really don't want the task to
@@ -908,7 +907,7 @@ static int task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(struc
 	if (owner == task)
 		return -EDEADLK;
 
-	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&task->pi_lock, flags);
+	raw_spin_lock(&task->pi_lock);
 	__rt_mutex_adjust_prio(task);
 	waiter->task = task;
 	waiter->lock = lock;
@@ -921,12 +920,12 @@ static int task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(struc
 
 	task->pi_blocked_on = waiter;
 
-	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags);
+	raw_spin_unlock(&task->pi_lock);
 
 	if (!owner)
 		return 0;
 
-	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&owner->pi_lock, flags);
+	raw_spin_lock(&owner->pi_lock);
 	if (waiter == rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock)) {
 		rt_mutex_dequeue_pi(owner, top_waiter);
 		rt_mutex_enqueue_pi(owner, waiter);
@@ -941,7 +940,7 @@ static int task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(struc
 	/* 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);
+	raw_spin_unlock(&owner->pi_lock);
 	/*
 	 * Even if full deadlock detection is on, if the owner is not
 	 * blocked itself, we can avoid finding this out in the chain
@@ -957,12 +956,12 @@ static int task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(struc
 	 */
 	get_task_struct(owner);
 
-	raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
+	raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
 
 	res = rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(owner, chwalk, lock,
 					 next_lock, waiter, task);
 
-	raw_spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock);
+	raw_spin_lock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
 
 	return res;
 }
@@ -977,9 +976,8 @@ static void mark_wakeup_next_waiter(stru
 				    struct rt_mutex *lock)
 {
 	struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter;
-	unsigned long flags;
 
-	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&current->pi_lock, flags);
+	raw_spin_lock(&current->pi_lock);
 
 	waiter = rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock);
 
@@ -1001,7 +999,7 @@ static void mark_wakeup_next_waiter(stru
 	 */
 	lock->owner = (void *) RT_MUTEX_HAS_WAITERS;
 
-	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&current->pi_lock, flags);
+	raw_spin_unlock(&current->pi_lock);
 
 	wake_q_add(wake_q, waiter->task);
 }
@@ -1018,12 +1016,11 @@ static void remove_waiter(struct rt_mute
 	bool is_top_waiter = (waiter == rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock));
 	struct task_struct *owner = rt_mutex_owner(lock);
 	struct rt_mutex *next_lock;
-	unsigned long flags;
 
-	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&current->pi_lock, flags);
+	raw_spin_lock(&current->pi_lock);
 	rt_mutex_dequeue(lock, waiter);
 	current->pi_blocked_on = NULL;
-	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&current->pi_lock, flags);
+	raw_spin_unlock(&current->pi_lock);
 
 	/*
 	 * Only update priority if the waiter was the highest priority
@@ -1032,7 +1029,7 @@ static void remove_waiter(struct rt_mute
 	if (!owner || !is_top_waiter)
 		return;
 
-	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&owner->pi_lock, flags);
+	raw_spin_lock(&owner->pi_lock);
 
 	rt_mutex_dequeue_pi(owner, waiter);
 
@@ -1044,7 +1041,7 @@ static void remove_waiter(struct rt_mute
 	/* 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);
+	raw_spin_unlock(&owner->pi_lock);
 
 	/*
 	 * Don't walk the chain, if the owner task is not blocked
@@ -1056,12 +1053,12 @@ static void remove_waiter(struct rt_mute
 	/* gets dropped in rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain()! */
 	get_task_struct(owner);
 
-	raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
+	raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
 
 	rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(owner, RT_MUTEX_MIN_CHAINWALK, lock,
 				   next_lock, NULL, current);
 
-	raw_spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock);
+	raw_spin_lock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
 }
 
 /*
@@ -1129,13 +1126,13 @@ static int __sched
 				break;
 		}
 
-		raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
+		raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
 
 		debug_rt_mutex_print_deadlock(waiter);
 
 		schedule();
 
-		raw_spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock);
+		raw_spin_lock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
 		set_current_state(state);
 	}
 
@@ -1172,17 +1169,26 @@ rt_mutex_slowlock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
 		  enum rtmutex_chainwalk chwalk)
 {
 	struct rt_mutex_waiter waiter;
+	unsigned long flags;
 	int ret = 0;
 
 	debug_rt_mutex_init_waiter(&waiter);
 	RB_CLEAR_NODE(&waiter.pi_tree_entry);
 	RB_CLEAR_NODE(&waiter.tree_entry);
 
-	raw_spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock);
+	/*
+	 * Technically we could use raw_spin_[un]lock_irq() here, but this can
+	 * be called in early boot if the cmpxchg() fast path is disabled
+	 * (debug, no architecture support). In this case we will acquire the
+	 * rtmutex with lock->wait_lock held. But we cannot unconditionally
+	 * enable interrupts in that early boot case. So we need to use the
+	 * irqsave/restore variants.
+	 */
+	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
 
 	/* Try to acquire the lock again: */
 	if (try_to_take_rt_mutex(lock, current, NULL)) {
-		raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
+		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
 		return 0;
 	}
 
@@ -1211,7 +1217,7 @@ rt_mutex_slowlock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
 	 */
 	fixup_rt_mutex_waiters(lock);
 
-	raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
+	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
 
 	/* Remove pending timer: */
 	if (unlikely(timeout))
@@ -1227,6 +1233,7 @@ rt_mutex_slowlock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
  */
 static inline int rt_mutex_slowtrylock(struct rt_mutex *lock)
 {
+	unsigned long flags;
 	int ret;
 
 	/*
@@ -1241,7 +1248,7 @@ static inline int rt_mutex_slowtrylock(s
 	 * The mutex has currently no owner. Lock the wait lock and
 	 * try to acquire the lock.
 	 */
-	raw_spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock);
+	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
 
 	ret = try_to_take_rt_mutex(lock, current, NULL);
 
@@ -1251,7 +1258,7 @@ static inline int rt_mutex_slowtrylock(s
 	 */
 	fixup_rt_mutex_waiters(lock);
 
-	raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
+	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
 
 	return ret;
 }
@@ -1263,7 +1270,9 @@ static inline int rt_mutex_slowtrylock(s
 static bool __sched rt_mutex_slowunlock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
 					struct wake_q_head *wake_q)
 {
-	raw_spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock);
+	unsigned long flags;
+
+	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
 
 	debug_rt_mutex_unlock(lock);
 
@@ -1302,10 +1311,10 @@ static bool __sched rt_mutex_slowunlock(
 	 */
 	while (!rt_mutex_has_waiters(lock)) {
 		/* Drops lock->wait_lock ! */
-		if (unlock_rt_mutex_safe(lock) == true)
+		if (unlock_rt_mutex_safe(lock, flags) == true)
 			return false;
 		/* Relock the rtmutex and try again */
-		raw_spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock);
+		raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -1316,7 +1325,7 @@ static bool __sched rt_mutex_slowunlock(
 	 */
 	mark_wakeup_next_waiter(wake_q, lock);
 
-	raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
+	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
 
 	/* check PI boosting */
 	return true;
@@ -1596,10 +1605,10 @@ int rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock(struct rt_
 {
 	int ret;
 
-	raw_spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock);
+	raw_spin_lock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
 
 	if (try_to_take_rt_mutex(lock, task, NULL)) {
-		raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
+		raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
 		return 1;
 	}
 
@@ -1620,7 +1629,7 @@ int rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock(struct rt_
 	if (unlikely(ret))
 		remove_waiter(lock, waiter);
 
-	raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
+	raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
 
 	debug_rt_mutex_print_deadlock(waiter);
 
@@ -1668,7 +1677,7 @@ int rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock(struct rt
 {
 	int ret;
 
-	raw_spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock);
+	raw_spin_lock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
 
 	set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
 
@@ -1684,7 +1693,7 @@ int rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock(struct rt
 	 */
 	fixup_rt_mutex_waiters(lock);
 
-	raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
+	raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
 
 	return ret;
 }

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ