| 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: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 09:49:04 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
Stefan Liebler <stli@...ux.ibm.com>,
Sebastian Sewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: WARN_ON_ONCE(!new_owner) within wake_futex_pi() triggered
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 04:53:19PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Right after staring long enough at it, the commit simply forgot to give
> __rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock() the same treatment as it gave to
> rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock().
>
> Patch below cures that.
Yes, that is a very nice solution. Find below an updated patch that
includes a few comments. I found it harder than it should be to
reconstruct this code.
(also, I flipped the label names)
---
kernel/futex.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++----------
kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
2 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/futex.c b/kernel/futex.c
index fdd312da0992..9d8411d3142d 100644
--- a/kernel/futex.c
+++ b/kernel/futex.c
@@ -2861,35 +2861,39 @@ static int futex_lock_pi(u32 __user *uaddr, unsigned int flags,
* and BUG when futex_unlock_pi() interleaves with this.
*
* Therefore acquire wait_lock while holding hb->lock, but drop the
- * latter before calling rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock(). This still fully
- * serializes against futex_unlock_pi() as that does the exact same
- * lock handoff sequence.
+ * latter before calling __rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock(). This
+ * interleaves with futex_unlock_pi() -- which does a similar lock
+ * handoff -- such that the latter can observe the futex_q::pi_state
+ * before __rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock() is done.
*/
raw_spin_lock_irq(&q.pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
spin_unlock(q.lock_ptr);
+ /*
+ * __rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock() unconditionally enqueues the @rt_waiter
+ * such that futex_unlock_pi() is guaranteed to observe the waiter when
+ * it sees the futex_q::pi_state.
+ */
ret = __rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock(&q.pi_state->pi_mutex, &rt_waiter, current);
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&q.pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
if (ret) {
if (ret == 1)
ret = 0;
-
- spin_lock(q.lock_ptr);
- goto no_block;
+ goto cleanup;
}
-
if (unlikely(to))
hrtimer_start_expires(&to->timer, HRTIMER_MODE_ABS);
ret = rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock(&q.pi_state->pi_mutex, to, &rt_waiter);
+cleanup:
spin_lock(q.lock_ptr);
/*
- * If we failed to acquire the lock (signal/timeout), we must
+ * If we failed to acquire the lock (deadlock/signal/timeout), we must
* first acquire the hb->lock before removing the lock from the
- * rt_mutex waitqueue, such that we can keep the hb and rt_mutex
- * wait lists consistent.
+ * rt_mutex waitqueue, such that we can keep the hb and rt_mutex wait
+ * lists consistent.
*
* In particular; it is important that futex_unlock_pi() can not
* observe this inconsistency.
@@ -3013,6 +3017,10 @@ static int futex_unlock_pi(u32 __user *uaddr, unsigned int flags)
* there is no point where we hold neither; and therefore
* wake_futex_pi() must observe a state consistent with what we
* observed.
+ *
+ * In particular; this forces __rt_mutex_start_proxy() to
+ * complete such that we're guaranteed to observe the
+ * rt_waiter. Also see the WARN in wake_futex_pi().
*/
raw_spin_lock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
spin_unlock(&hb->lock);
diff --git a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
index 581edcc63c26..afaf37d0ac15 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
@@ -1726,12 +1726,33 @@ void rt_mutex_proxy_unlock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
rt_mutex_set_owner(lock, NULL);
}
+/**
+ * __rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock() - Start lock acquisition for another task
+ * @lock: the rt_mutex to take
+ * @waiter: the pre-initialized rt_mutex_waiter
+ * @task: the task to prepare
+ *
+ * Starts the rt_mutex acquire; it enqueues the @waiter and does deadlock
+ * detection. It does not wait, see rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock() for that.
+ *
+ * NOTE: does _NOT_ remove the @waiter on failure; must either call
+ * rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock() or rt_mutex_cleanup_proxy_lock() after this.
+ *
+ * Returns:
+ * 0 - task blocked on lock
+ * 1 - acquired the lock for task, caller should wake it up
+ * <0 - error
+ *
+ * Special API call for PI-futex support.
+ */
int __rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter,
struct task_struct *task)
{
int ret;
+ lockdep_asssert_held(&lock->wait_lock);
+
if (try_to_take_rt_mutex(lock, task, NULL))
return 1;
@@ -1749,9 +1770,6 @@ int __rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
ret = 0;
}
- if (unlikely(ret))
- remove_waiter(lock, waiter);
-
debug_rt_mutex_print_deadlock(waiter);
return ret;
@@ -1763,12 +1781,18 @@ int __rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
* @waiter: the pre-initialized rt_mutex_waiter
* @task: the task to prepare
*
+ * Starts the rt_mutex acquire; it enqueues the @waiter and does deadlock
+ * detection. It does not wait, see rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock() for that.
+ *
+ * NOTE: unlike __rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock this _DOES_ remove the @waiter
+ * on failure.
+ *
* Returns:
* 0 - task blocked on lock
* 1 - acquired the lock for task, caller should wake it up
* <0 - error
*
- * Special API call for FUTEX_REQUEUE_PI support.
+ * Special API call for PI-futex support.
*/
int rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter,
@@ -1778,6 +1802,8 @@ int rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
raw_spin_lock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
ret = __rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock(lock, waiter, task);
+ if (unlikely(ret))
+ remove_waiter(lock, waiter);
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
return ret;
@@ -1845,7 +1871,8 @@ int rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
* @lock: the rt_mutex we were woken on
* @waiter: the pre-initialized rt_mutex_waiter
*
- * Attempt to clean up after a failed rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock().
+ * Attempt to clean up after a failed __rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock() or
+ * rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock().
*
* Unless we acquired the lock; we're still enqueued on the wait-list and can
* in fact still be granted ownership until we're removed. Therefore we can
Powered by blists - more mailing lists