linux-kernel - Re: WARN_ON_ONCE(!new_owner) within wake_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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190128134410.GA28485@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 28 Jan 2019 14:44:10 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        Stefan Liebler <stli@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: WARN_ON_ONCE(!new_owner) within wake_futex_pi() triggered

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 12:23:21PM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote:

> And indeed, if I run only this test case in an endless loop and do
> some parallel work (like kernel compile) it currently seems to be
> possible to reproduce the warning:
> 
> while true; do time ./testrun.sh nptl/tst-robustpi8 --direct ; done
> 
> within the build directory of glibc (2.28).

Right; so that reproduces for me.

After staring at all that for a while; trying to remember how it all
worked (or supposed to work rather), I became suspiscous of commit:

  56222b212e8e ("futex: Drop hb->lock before enqueueing on the rtmutex")

And indeed, when I revert that; the above reproducer no longer works (as
in, it no longer triggers in minutes and has -- so far -- held up for an
hour+ or so).

That patch in particular allows futex_unlock_pi() to 'start' early:

futex_lock_pi()				futex_unlock_pi()
  lock hb
  queue
  lock wait_lock
  unlock hb
					lock hb
					futex_top_waiter
					get_pi_state
					lock wait_lock
  rt_mutex_proxy_start // fail
  unlock wait_lock
					// acquired wait_lock
					wake_futex_pi()
					rt_mutex_next_owner() // whoops, no waiter
					WARN

  lock hb
  unqueue_me_pi

So reverting that patch should cure things, because then there is no hb
lock break between queue/unqueue and futex_unlock_pi() cannot observe
this half-arsed state.

Now obviously reverting that makes RT unhappy; let me see what the
options are.

(concurrently tglx generated a trace that corroborates)