linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v6 04/13] futex,rt_mutex: Provide futex specific rt

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: <20170405150217.GA27833@fury>
Date:   Wed, 5 Apr 2017 08:02:17 -0700
From:   Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...nel.org, juri.lelli@....com,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, xlpang@...hat.com, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
        jdesfossez@...icios.com, bristot@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v6 04/13] futex,rt_mutex: Provide futex specific
 rt_mutex API

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 11:35:51AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Part of what makes futex_unlock_pi() intricate is that
> rt_mutex_futex_unlock() -> rt_mutex_slowunlock() can drop
> rt_mutex::wait_lock.
> 
> This means we cannot rely on the atomicy of wait_lock, which we would
> like to do in order to not rely on hb->lock so much.
> 
> The reason rt_mutex_slowunlock() needs to drop wait_lock is because it
> can race with the rt_mutex fastpath, however futexes have their own
> fast path.
> 
> Since futexes already have a bunch of separate rt_mutex accessors,
> complete that set and implement a rt_mutex variant without fastpath
> for them.

Premise makes sense, I'm tripping over some detail - wondering if it is all
related...

> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> ---
>  kernel/futex.c                  |   30 ++++++++++-----------
>  kernel/locking/rtmutex.c        |   55 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>  kernel/locking/rtmutex_common.h |    9 +++++-
>  3 files changed, 62 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
> 
> --- a/kernel/futex.c
> +++ b/kernel/futex.c
> @@ -916,7 +916,7 @@ 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);
>  
> @@ -1364,20 +1364,18 @@ 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.

It isn't clear to me what I should understand from this new comment. How does
the value of the uval affect whether or not the pi_state->pi_mutex can be
unlocked or not? Or are you noting that we've set FUTEX_WAITIERS so any valid
userspace operations will be forced intot he kernel and can't race with us since
we hold the hb->lock? With futexes, I think it's important that we be very
explicit in our comment blocks.

>  	 */
> +	deboost = __rt_mutex_futex_unlock(&pi_state->pi_mutex, &wake_q);
> +
> +	raw_spin_unlock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
>  	spin_unlock(&hb->lock);
> -	wake_up_q(&wake_q);
> -	if (deboost)
> +
> +	if (deboost) {
> +		wake_up_q(&wake_q);

Is moving wake_up_q under deboost related to this change or is it just an
optimization since there is no need to wake unless we are deboosting ourselves -
which was true before as well?

If this is due to the rt_mutex_futex* API, I haven't made the connection.

-- 
Darren Hart
VMware Open Source Technology Center