linux-kernel - [PATCH 08/17] futex: Rework inconsistent rt_mutex/futex

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri,  9 Nov 2018 11:07:36 +0100
From:   Henrik Austad <henrik@...tad.us>
To:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Henrik Austad <haustad@...co.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, juri.lelli@....com,
        bigeasy@...utronix.de, xlpang@...hat.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, jdesfossez@...icios.com,
        dvhart@...radead.org, bristot@...hat.com,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: [PATCH 08/17] futex: Rework inconsistent rt_mutex/futex_q state

From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>

commit 73d786bd043ebc855f349c81ea805f6b11cbf2aa upstream.

There is a weird state in the futex_unlock_pi() path when it interleaves
with a concurrent futex_lock_pi() at the point where it drops hb->lock.

In this case, it can happen that the rt_mutex wait_list and the futex_q
disagree on pending waiters, in particular rt_mutex will find no pending
waiters where futex_q thinks there are. In this case the rt_mutex unlock
code cannot assign an owner.

The futex side fixup code has to cleanup the inconsistencies with quite a
bunch of interesting corner cases.

Simplify all this by changing wake_futex_pi() to return -EAGAIN when this
situation occurs. This then gives the futex_lock_pi() code the opportunity
to continue and the retried futex_unlock_pi() will now observe a coherent
state.

The only problem is that this breaks RT timeliness guarantees. That
is, consider the following scenario:

  T1 and T2 are both pinned to CPU0. prio(T2) > prio(T1)

    CPU0

    T1
      lock_pi()
      queue_me()  <- Waiter is visible

    preemption

    T2
      unlock_pi()
	loops with -EAGAIN forever

Which is undesirable for PI primitives. Future patches will rectify
this.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: juri.lelli@....com
Cc: bigeasy@...utronix.de
Cc: xlpang@...hat.com
Cc: rostedt@...dmis.org
Cc: mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com
Cc: jdesfossez@...icios.com
Cc: dvhart@...radead.org
Cc: bristot@...hat.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170322104151.850383690@infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Tested-by: Henrik Austad <haustad@...co.com>
---
 kernel/futex.c | 50 ++++++++++++++------------------------------------
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/futex.c b/kernel/futex.c
index 9d7d462..91acb65 100644
--- a/kernel/futex.c
+++ b/kernel/futex.c
@@ -1398,12 +1398,19 @@ static int wake_futex_pi(u32 __user *uaddr, u32 uval, struct futex_q *top_waiter
 	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.
+	 * When we interleave with futex_lock_pi() where it does
+	 * rt_mutex_timed_futex_lock(), we might observe @this futex_q waiter,
+	 * but the rt_mutex's wait_list can be empty (either still, or again,
+	 * depending on which side we land).
+	 *
+	 * When this happens, give up our locks and try again, giving the
+	 * futex_lock_pi() instance time to complete, either by waiting on the
+	 * rtmutex or removing itself from the futex queue.
 	 */
-	if (!new_owner)
-		new_owner = top_waiter->task;
+	if (!new_owner) {
+		raw_spin_unlock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
+		return -EAGAIN;
+	}
 
 	/*
 	 * We pass it to the next owner. The WAITERS bit is always
@@ -2342,7 +2349,6 @@ static long futex_wait_restart(struct restart_block *restart);
  */
 static int fixup_owner(u32 __user *uaddr, struct futex_q *q, int locked)
 {
-	struct task_struct *owner;
 	int ret = 0;
 
 	if (locked) {
@@ -2356,43 +2362,15 @@ static int fixup_owner(u32 __user *uaddr, struct futex_q *q, int locked)
 	}
 
 	/*
-	 * 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_futex_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;
-- 
2.7.4