| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 13:21:43 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: mingo@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, juri.lelli@....com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, xlpang@...hat.com, bigeasy@...utronix.de
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
jdesfossez@...icios.com, bristot@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/4] futex: Rewrite FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI
New version..
This one seems to pass all the (pi) futex tests and survives many hours
of my modified pi_stress (I added MADV_UNMAP to punch holes in the
page-tables to trigger (minor) faults).
---
Subject: futex: Rewrite FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Date: Sun Oct 2 18:42:33 CEST 2016
There's a number of 'interesting' problems with FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI, all
caused by holding hb->lock while doing the rt_mutex_unlock()
equivalient.
Notably:
- a PI inversion on hb->lock
- DL crash because of pointer instability.
This patch doesn't attempt to fix any of the actual problems, but
instead reworks the code to not hold hb->lock across the unlock,
paving the way to actually fix the problems later.
The current reason we hold hb->lock over unlock is that it serializes
against FUTEX_LOCK_PI and avoids new waiters from coming in, this then
ensures the rt_mutex_next_owner() value is stable and can be written
into the user-space futex value before doing the unlock. Such that the
unlock will indeed end up at new_owner.
This patch recognises that holding rt_mutex::wait_lock results in the
very same guarantee, no new waiters can come in while we hold that
lock -- after all, waiters would need this lock to queue themselves.
This (of course) is not entirely straight forward either, see the
comment in rt_mutex_slowunlock(), doing the unlock itself might drop
wait_lock, letting new waiters in.
Another problem is the case where futex_lock_pi() failed to acquire
the lock (ie. released rt_mutex::wait_lock) but hasn't yet re-acquired
hb->lock and called unqueue_me_pi(). In this case we're confused about
having waiters (the futex state says yes, the rt_mutex state says no).
The current solution is to assign the futex to the waiter from the
futex state, and have futex_lock_pi() detect this and try and fix it
up. This again, all relies on hb->lock serializing things.
Solve all that by:
- using futex specific rt_mutex calls that lack the fastpath, futexes
have their own fastpath anyway. This makes that
rt_mutex_futex_unlock() doesn't need to drop rt_mutex::wait_lock
and the unlock is guaranteed if we manage to update user state.
- make futex_unlock_pi() drop hb->lock early and only use
rt_mutex::wait_lock to serialize against rt_mutex waiters
update the futex value and unlock.
- in case futex and rt_mutex disagree on waiters, side with rt_mutex
and simply clear the user value. This works because either there
really are no waiters left, or futex_lock_pi() triggers the
lock-steal path and fixes up the WAITERS flag.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
---
kernel/futex.c | 178 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 55 +++++++++---
kernel/locking/rtmutex_common.h | 9 +-
3 files changed, 139 insertions(+), 103 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/futex.c
+++ b/kernel/futex.c
@@ -914,7 +914,7 @@ void exit_pi_state_list(struct task_stru
pi_state->owner = NULL;
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&curr->pi_lock);
- rt_mutex_unlock(&pi_state->pi_mutex);
+ rt_mutex_futex_unlock(&pi_state->pi_mutex);
spin_unlock(&hb->lock);
@@ -1146,7 +1146,7 @@ static int lock_pi_update_atomic(u32 __u
if (unlikely(cmpxchg_futex_value_locked(&curval, uaddr, uval, newval)))
return -EFAULT;
- /*If user space value changed, let the caller retry */
+ /* If user space value changed, let the caller retry */
return curval != uval ? -EAGAIN : 0;
}
@@ -1291,49 +1291,58 @@ static void mark_wake_futex(struct wake_
smp_store_release(&q->lock_ptr, NULL);
}
-static int wake_futex_pi(u32 __user *uaddr, u32 uval, struct futex_q *top_waiter,
- struct futex_hash_bucket *hb)
+static int wake_futex_pi(u32 __user *uaddr, u32 uval, struct futex_pi_state *pi_state)
{
- struct task_struct *new_owner;
- struct futex_pi_state *pi_state = top_waiter->pi_state;
u32 uninitialized_var(curval), newval;
+ struct task_struct *new_owner;
+ bool deboost = false;
WAKE_Q(wake_q);
- bool deboost;
int ret = 0;
- if (!pi_state)
- return -EINVAL;
-
- /*
- * If current does not own the pi_state then the futex is
- * inconsistent and user space fiddled with the futex value.
- */
- if (pi_state->owner != current)
- return -EINVAL;
-
raw_spin_lock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
- new_owner = rt_mutex_next_owner(&pi_state->pi_mutex);
-
- /*
- * It is possible that the next waiter (the one that brought
- * top_waiter owner to the kernel) timed out and is no longer
- * waiting on the lock.
- */
- if (!new_owner)
- new_owner = top_waiter->task;
- /*
- * We pass it to the next owner. The WAITERS bit is always
- * kept enabled while there is PI state around. We cleanup the
- * owner died bit, because we are the owner.
- */
- newval = FUTEX_WAITERS | task_pid_vnr(new_owner);
+ new_owner = rt_mutex_next_owner(&pi_state->pi_mutex);
+ if (!new_owner) {
+ /*
+ * This is the case where futex_lock_pi() has not yet or failed
+ * to acquire the lock but still has the futex_q enqueued. So
+ * the futex state has a 'waiter' while the rt_mutex state does
+ * not.
+ *
+ * Even though there still is pi_state for this futex, we can
+ * clear FUTEX_WAITERS. Either:
+ *
+ * - we or futex_lock_pi() will drop the last reference and
+ * clean up this pi_state,
+ *
+ * - userspace acquires the futex through its fastpath
+ * and the above pi_state cleanup still happens,
+ *
+ * - or futex_lock_pi() will re-set the WAITERS bit in
+ * fixup_owner().
+ */
+ newval = 0;
+ /*
+ * Since pi_state->owner must point to a valid task, and
+ * task_pid_vnr(pi_state->owner) must match TID_MASK, use
+ * init_task.
+ */
+ new_owner = &init_task;
+ } else {
+ /*
+ * We pass it to the next owner. The WAITERS bit is always kept
+ * enabled while there is PI state around. We cleanup the owner
+ * died bit, because we are the owner.
+ */
+ newval = FUTEX_WAITERS | task_pid_vnr(new_owner);
+ }
if (unlikely(should_fail_futex(true)))
ret = -EFAULT;
if (cmpxchg_futex_value_locked(&curval, uaddr, uval, newval)) {
ret = -EFAULT;
+
} else if (curval != uval) {
/*
* If a unconditional UNLOCK_PI operation (user space did not
@@ -1346,10 +1355,9 @@ static int wake_futex_pi(u32 __user *uad
else
ret = -EINVAL;
}
- if (ret) {
- raw_spin_unlock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
- return ret;
- }
+
+ if (ret)
+ goto out_unlock;
raw_spin_lock(&pi_state->owner->pi_lock);
WARN_ON(list_empty(&pi_state->list));
@@ -1362,22 +1370,20 @@ static int wake_futex_pi(u32 __user *uad
pi_state->owner = new_owner;
raw_spin_unlock(&new_owner->pi_lock);
- raw_spin_unlock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
-
- deboost = rt_mutex_futex_unlock(&pi_state->pi_mutex, &wake_q);
-
/*
- * First unlock HB so the waiter does not spin on it once he got woken
- * up. Second wake up the waiter before the priority is adjusted. If we
- * deboost first (and lose our higher priority), then the task might get
- * scheduled away before the wake up can take place.
+ * We've updated the uservalue, this unlock cannot fail.
*/
- spin_unlock(&hb->lock);
- wake_up_q(&wake_q);
- if (deboost)
+ deboost = __rt_mutex_futex_unlock(&pi_state->pi_mutex, &wake_q);
+
+out_unlock:
+ raw_spin_unlock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
+
+ if (deboost) {
+ wake_up_q(&wake_q);
rt_mutex_adjust_prio(current);
+ }
- return 0;
+ return ret;
}
/*
@@ -2228,7 +2234,6 @@ static long futex_wait_restart(struct re
*/
static int fixup_owner(u32 __user *uaddr, struct futex_q *q, int locked)
{
- struct task_struct *owner;
int ret = 0;
if (locked) {
@@ -2242,43 +2247,15 @@ static int fixup_owner(u32 __user *uaddr
}
/*
- * Catch the rare case, where the lock was released when we were on the
- * way back before we locked the hash bucket.
- */
- if (q->pi_state->owner == current) {
- /*
- * Try to get the rt_mutex now. This might fail as some other
- * task acquired the rt_mutex after we removed ourself from the
- * rt_mutex waiters list.
- */
- if (rt_mutex_trylock(&q->pi_state->pi_mutex)) {
- locked = 1;
- goto out;
- }
-
- /*
- * pi_state is incorrect, some other task did a lock steal and
- * we returned due to timeout or signal without taking the
- * rt_mutex. Too late.
- */
- 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_irq(&q->pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
- ret = fixup_pi_state_owner(uaddr, q, owner);
- goto out;
- }
-
- /*
* Paranoia check. If we did not take the lock, then we should not be
* the owner of the rt_mutex.
*/
- if (rt_mutex_owner(&q->pi_state->pi_mutex) == current)
+ if (rt_mutex_owner(&q->pi_state->pi_mutex) == current) {
printk(KERN_ERR "fixup_owner: ret = %d pi-mutex: %p "
"pi-state %p\n", ret,
q->pi_state->pi_mutex.owner,
q->pi_state->owner);
+ }
out:
return ret ? ret : locked;
@@ -2566,7 +2543,7 @@ static int futex_lock_pi(u32 __user *uad
if (!trylock) {
ret = rt_mutex_timed_futex_lock(&q.pi_state->pi_mutex, to);
} else {
- ret = rt_mutex_trylock(&q.pi_state->pi_mutex);
+ ret = rt_mutex_futex_trylock(&q.pi_state->pi_mutex);
/* Fixup the trylock return value: */
ret = ret ? 0 : -EWOULDBLOCK;
}
@@ -2589,7 +2566,7 @@ static int futex_lock_pi(u32 __user *uad
* it and return the fault to userspace.
*/
if (ret && (rt_mutex_owner(&q.pi_state->pi_mutex) == current))
- rt_mutex_unlock(&q.pi_state->pi_mutex);
+ rt_mutex_futex_unlock(&q.pi_state->pi_mutex);
/* Unqueue and drop the lock */
unqueue_me_pi(&q);
@@ -2656,7 +2633,34 @@ static int futex_unlock_pi(u32 __user *u
*/
top_waiter = futex_top_waiter(hb, &key);
if (top_waiter) {
- ret = wake_futex_pi(uaddr, uval, top_waiter, hb);
+ struct futex_pi_state *pi_state = top_waiter->pi_state;
+
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ if (!pi_state)
+ goto out_unlock;
+
+ /*
+ * If current does not own the pi_state then the futex is
+ * inconsistent and user space fiddled with the futex value.
+ */
+ if (pi_state->owner != current)
+ goto out_unlock;
+
+ /*
+ * Grab a reference on the pi_state and drop hb->lock.
+ *
+ * The reference ensures pi_state lives, dropping the hb->lock
+ * is tricky.. wake_futex_pi() will take rt_mutex::wait_lock to
+ * close the races against futex_lock_pi(), but in case of
+ * _any_ fail we'll abort and retry the whole deal.
+ */
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(!atomic_inc_not_zero(&pi_state->refcount));
+ spin_unlock(&hb->lock);
+
+ ret = wake_futex_pi(uaddr, uval, pi_state);
+
+ put_pi_state(pi_state);
+
/*
* In case of success wake_futex_pi dropped the hash
* bucket lock.
@@ -2674,7 +2678,6 @@ static int futex_unlock_pi(u32 __user *u
* setting the FUTEX_WAITERS bit. Try again.
*/
if (ret == -EAGAIN) {
- spin_unlock(&hb->lock);
put_futex_key(&key);
goto retry;
}
@@ -2682,7 +2685,7 @@ static int futex_unlock_pi(u32 __user *u
* wake_futex_pi has detected invalid state. Tell user
* space.
*/
- goto out_unlock;
+ goto out_putkey;
}
/*
@@ -2692,8 +2695,10 @@ static int futex_unlock_pi(u32 __user *u
* preserve the WAITERS bit not the OWNER_DIED one. We are the
* owner.
*/
- if (cmpxchg_futex_value_locked(&curval, uaddr, uval, 0))
+ if (cmpxchg_futex_value_locked(&curval, uaddr, uval, 0)) {
+ spin_unlock(&hb->lock);
goto pi_faulted;
+ }
/*
* If uval has changed, let user space handle it.
@@ -2707,7 +2712,6 @@ static int futex_unlock_pi(u32 __user *u
return ret;
pi_faulted:
- spin_unlock(&hb->lock);
put_futex_key(&key);
ret = fault_in_user_writeable(uaddr);
@@ -2937,7 +2941,7 @@ static int futex_wait_requeue_pi(u32 __u
*/
if (ret == -EFAULT) {
if (pi_mutex && rt_mutex_owner(pi_mutex) == current)
- rt_mutex_unlock(pi_mutex);
+ rt_mutex_futex_unlock(pi_mutex);
} else if (ret == -EINTR) {
/*
* We've already been requeued, but cannot restart by calling
--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
@@ -1422,15 +1422,23 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rt_mutex_lock_interrup
/*
* Futex variant with full deadlock detection.
+ * Futex variants must not use the fast-path, see __rt_mutex_futex_unlock().
*/
-int rt_mutex_timed_futex_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
+int __sched rt_mutex_timed_futex_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
struct hrtimer_sleeper *timeout)
{
might_sleep();
- return rt_mutex_timed_fastlock(lock, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, timeout,
- RT_MUTEX_FULL_CHAINWALK,
- rt_mutex_slowlock);
+ return rt_mutex_slowlock(lock, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE,
+ timeout, RT_MUTEX_FULL_CHAINWALK);
+}
+
+/*
+ * Futex variant, must not use fastpath.
+ */
+int __sched rt_mutex_futex_trylock(struct rt_mutex *lock)
+{
+ return rt_mutex_slowtrylock(lock);
}
/**
@@ -1489,19 +1497,38 @@ void __sched rt_mutex_unlock(struct rt_m
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rt_mutex_unlock);
/**
- * rt_mutex_futex_unlock - Futex variant of rt_mutex_unlock
- * @lock: the rt_mutex to be unlocked
- *
- * Returns: true/false indicating whether priority adjustment is
- * required or not.
+ * Futex variant, that since futex variants do not use the fast-path, can be
+ * simple and will not need to retry.
*/
-bool __sched rt_mutex_futex_unlock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
- struct wake_q_head *wqh)
+bool __sched __rt_mutex_futex_unlock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
+ struct wake_q_head *wake_q)
+{
+ lockdep_assert_held(&lock->wait_lock);
+
+ debug_rt_mutex_unlock(lock);
+
+ if (!rt_mutex_has_waiters(lock)) {
+ lock->owner = NULL;
+ return false; /* done */
+ }
+
+ mark_wakeup_next_waiter(wake_q, lock);
+ return true; /* deboost and wakeups */
+}
+
+void __sched rt_mutex_futex_unlock(struct rt_mutex *lock)
{
- if (likely(rt_mutex_cmpxchg_release(lock, current, NULL)))
- return false;
+ WAKE_Q(wake_q);
+ bool deboost;
- return rt_mutex_slowunlock(lock, wqh);
+ raw_spin_lock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
+ deboost = __rt_mutex_futex_unlock(lock, &wake_q);
+ raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
+
+ if (deboost) {
+ wake_up_q(&wake_q);
+ rt_mutex_adjust_prio(current);
+ }
}
/**
--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex_common.h
+++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex_common.h
@@ -108,9 +108,14 @@ extern int rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock(str
extern int rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
struct hrtimer_sleeper *to,
struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter);
+
extern int rt_mutex_timed_futex_lock(struct rt_mutex *l, struct hrtimer_sleeper *to);
-extern bool rt_mutex_futex_unlock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
- struct wake_q_head *wqh);
+extern int rt_mutex_futex_trylock(struct rt_mutex *l);
+
+extern void rt_mutex_futex_unlock(struct rt_mutex *lock);
+extern bool __rt_mutex_futex_unlock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
+ struct wake_q_head *wqh);
+
extern void rt_mutex_adjust_prio(struct task_struct *task);
#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_RT_MUTEXES
Powered by blists - more mailing lists