linux-kernel - Re: [RT WARNING] DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(rt_mutex_owner(lock) != current) with fsfreeze (4.19.25-rt16)

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]

Date:   Fri, 3 May 2019 17:25:13 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, jack@...e.com,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Subject: Re: [RT WARNING] DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(rt_mutex_owner(lock) !=
 current) with fsfreeze (4.19.25-rt16)

On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 04:50:59PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> So how about something like so then?

> --- a/kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c

> @@ -63,7 +66,7 @@ int __percpu_down_read(struct percpu_rw_
>  	 * If !readers_block the critical section starts here, matched by the
>  	 * release in percpu_up_write().
>  	 */
> -	if (likely(!smp_load_acquire(&sem->readers_block)))
> +	if (likely(!atomic_read_acquire(&sem->block)))
>  		return 1;
>  
>  	/*
> @@ -80,14 +83,8 @@ int __percpu_down_read(struct percpu_rw_
>  	 * and reschedule on the preempt_enable() in percpu_down_read().
>  	 */
>  	preempt_enable_no_resched();
> -
> -	/*
> -	 * Avoid lockdep for the down/up_read() we already have them.
> -	 */
> -	__down_read(&sem->rw_sem);
> +	wait_event(sem->waiters, !atomic_read(&sem->block));

That should be:

	wait_event(sem->waiters, !atomic_read_acquire(&sem->block));

I suppose.

>  	this_cpu_inc(*sem->read_count);
> -	__up_read(&sem->rw_sem);
> -
>  	preempt_disable();
>  	return 1;
>  }
> @@ -104,7 +101,7 @@ void __percpu_up_read(struct percpu_rw_s
>  	__this_cpu_dec(*sem->read_count);
>  
>  	/* Prod writer to recheck readers_active */
> -	rcuwait_wake_up(&sem->writer);
> +	wake_up(&sem->waiters);
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__percpu_up_read);
>  
> @@ -139,18 +136,22 @@ static bool readers_active_check(struct
>  	return true;
>  }
>  
> +static inline bool acquire_block(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem)
> +{
> +	if (atomic_read(&sem->block))
> +		return false;
> +
> +	return atomic_xchg(&sem->block, 1) == 0;
> +}
> +
>  void percpu_down_write(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem)
>  {
> +	rwsem_acquire(&sem->dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
> +
>  	/* Notify readers to take the slow path. */
>  	rcu_sync_enter(&sem->rss);
>  
> -	down_write(&sem->rw_sem);
> -
> -	/*
> -	 * Notify new readers to block; up until now, and thus throughout the
> -	 * longish rcu_sync_enter() above, new readers could still come in.
> -	 */
> -	WRITE_ONCE(sem->readers_block, 1);
> +	wait_event_exclusive(sem->waiters, acquire_block(sem));
>  
>  	smp_mb(); /* D matches A */

And we can remove that smp_mb() and rely on the atomic_xchg() from
acquire_block().

>  
> @@ -161,7 +162,7 @@ void percpu_down_write(struct percpu_rw_
>  	 */
>  
>  	/* Wait for all now active readers to complete. */
> -	rcuwait_wait_event(&sem->writer, readers_active_check(sem));
> +	wait_event(sem->waiters, readers_active_check(sem));
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(percpu_down_write);
>  
> @@ -177,12 +178,8 @@ void percpu_up_write(struct percpu_rw_se
>  	 * Therefore we force it through the slow path which guarantees an
>  	 * acquire and thereby guarantees the critical section's consistency.
>  	 */
> -	smp_store_release(&sem->readers_block, 0);
> -
> -	/*
> -	 * Release the write lock, this will allow readers back in the game.
> -	 */
> -	up_write(&sem->rw_sem);
> +	atomic_set_release(&sem->block, 0);
> +	wake_up(&sem->waiters);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * Once this completes (at least one RCU-sched grace period hence) the
> @@ -190,5 +187,21 @@ void percpu_up_write(struct percpu_rw_se
>  	 * exclusive write lock because its counting.
>  	 */
>  	rcu_sync_exit(&sem->rss);
> +
> +	rwsem_release(&sem->dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_);
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(percpu_up_write);