linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] kernel: locking: rtmutex: Fix a possible sleep-in-atomic-context bug in rt_mutex_handle

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180910135627.GL24106@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 10 Sep 2018 15:56:27 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@...il.com>
Cc:     mingo@...hat.com, will.deacon@....com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] kernel: locking: rtmutex: Fix a possible
 sleep-in-atomic-context bug in rt_mutex_handle_deadlock()

On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 11:00:37AM +0800, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:

You forgot to Cc the person who wrote this code...

>  kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 6 ++++--
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
> index 2823d4163a37..8f25a289abe8 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
> @@ -1205,7 +1205,7 @@ __rt_mutex_slowlock(struct rt_mutex *lock, int state,
>  }
>  
>  static void rt_mutex_handle_deadlock(int res, int detect_deadlock,
> -				     struct rt_mutex_waiter *w)
> +				     struct rt_mutex_waiter *w, struct rt_mutex *lock)
>  {
>  	/*
>  	 * If the result is not -EDEADLOCK or the caller requested
> @@ -1218,6 +1218,8 @@ static void rt_mutex_handle_deadlock(int res, int detect_deadlock,
>  	 * Yell lowdly and stop the task right here.
>  	 */
>  	rt_mutex_print_deadlock(w);
> +	/* We're not going anywhere, release the wait_lock */
> +	raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
>  	while (1) {
>  		set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
>  		schedule();
> @@ -1269,7 +1271,7 @@ rt_mutex_slowlock(struct rt_mutex *lock, int state,
>  	if (unlikely(ret)) {
>  		__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
>  		remove_waiter(lock, &waiter);
> -		rt_mutex_handle_deadlock(ret, chwalk, &waiter);
> +		rt_mutex_handle_deadlock(ret, chwalk, &waiter, lock);
>  	}

The patch is correct; but I can't find myself liking it very much. This
dinly little single use function is growing a lot of arguments.

The alternative is something like the below; not sure myself though.
Thomas?


diff --git a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
index 2823d4163a37..a44d4034e232 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
@@ -1204,18 +1204,10 @@ __rt_mutex_slowlock(struct rt_mutex *lock, int state,
 	return ret;
 }
 
-static void rt_mutex_handle_deadlock(int res, int detect_deadlock,
-				     struct rt_mutex_waiter *w)
+static void rt_mutex_handle_deadlock(struct rt_mutex_waiter *w)
 {
 	/*
-	 * If the result is not -EDEADLOCK or the caller requested
-	 * deadlock detection, nothing to do here.
-	 */
-	if (res != -EDEADLOCK || detect_deadlock)
-		return;
-
-	/*
-	 * Yell lowdly and stop the task right here.
+	 * Yell loudly and stop the task right here.
 	 */
 	rt_mutex_print_deadlock(w);
 	while (1) {
@@ -1269,7 +1261,10 @@ rt_mutex_slowlock(struct rt_mutex *lock, int state,
 	if (unlikely(ret)) {
 		__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
 		remove_waiter(lock, &waiter);
-		rt_mutex_handle_deadlock(ret, chwalk, &waiter);
+		if (chwalk == RT_MUTEX_MIN_CHAINWALK && ret == -EDEADLOCK) {
+			raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
+			rt_mutex_handle_deadlock(&waiter);
+		}
 	}
 
 	/*