linux-kernel - [tip: locking/urgent] futex: Handle transient "ownerless" rtmutex state correctly

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: <160469801844.397.7418241151599681987.tip-bot2@tip-bot2>
Date:   Fri, 06 Nov 2020 21:26:58 -0000
From:   "tip-bot2 for Mike Galbraith" <tip-bot2@...utronix.de>
To:     linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Gratian Crisan <gratian.crisan@...com>,
        Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        x86 <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [tip: locking/urgent] futex: Handle transient "ownerless" rtmutex
 state correctly

The following commit has been merged into the locking/urgent branch of tip:

Commit-ID:     63c1b4db662a0967dd7839a2fbaa5300e553901d
Gitweb:        https://git.kernel.org/tip/63c1b4db662a0967dd7839a2fbaa5300e553901d
Author:        Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
AuthorDate:    Wed, 04 Nov 2020 16:12:44 +01:00
Committer:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CommitterDate: Fri, 06 Nov 2020 22:24:58 +01:00

futex: Handle transient "ownerless" rtmutex state correctly

Gratian managed to trigger the BUG_ON(!newowner) in fixup_pi_state_owner().
This is one possible chain of events leading to this:

Task Prio       Operation
T1   120	lock(F)
T2   120	lock(F)   -> blocks (top waiter)
T3   50 (RT)	lock(F)   -> boosts T1 and blocks (new top waiter)
XX   		timeout/  -> wakes T2
		signal
T1   50		unlock(F) -> wakes T3 (rtmutex->owner == NULL, waiter bit is set)
T2   120	cleanup   -> try_to_take_mutex() fails because T3 is the top waiter
     			     and the lower priority T2 cannot steal the lock.
     			  -> fixup_pi_state_owner() sees newowner == NULL -> BUG_ON()

The comment states that this is invalid and rt_mutex_real_owner() must
return a non NULL owner when the trylock failed, but in case of a queued
and woken up waiter rt_mutex_real_owner() == NULL is a valid transient
state. The higher priority waiter has simply not yet managed to take over
the rtmutex.

The BUG_ON() is therefore wrong and this is just another retry condition in
fixup_pi_state_owner().

Drop the locks, so that T3 can make progress, and then try the fixup again.

Gratian provided a great analysis, traces and a reproducer. The analysis is
to the point, but it confused the hell out of that tglx dude who had to
page in all the futex horrors again. Condensed version is above. 

[ tglx: Wrote comment and changelog ]

Fixes: c1e2f0eaf015 ("futex: Avoid violating the 10th rule of futex")
Reported-by: Gratian Crisan <gratian.crisan@...com>
Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/87a6w6x7bb.fsf@ni.com
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/87sg9pkvf7.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de

---
 kernel/futex.c | 16 ++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/futex.c b/kernel/futex.c
index f8614ef..7406914 100644
--- a/kernel/futex.c
+++ b/kernel/futex.c
@@ -2380,10 +2380,22 @@ retry:
 		}
 
 		/*
-		 * Since we just failed the trylock; there must be an owner.
+		 * The trylock just failed, so either there is an owner or
+		 * there is a higher priority waiter than this one.
 		 */
 		newowner = rt_mutex_owner(&pi_state->pi_mutex);
-		BUG_ON(!newowner);
+		/*
+		 * If the higher priority waiter has not yet taken over the
+		 * rtmutex then newowner is NULL. We can't return here with
+		 * that state because it's inconsistent vs. the user space
+		 * state. So drop the locks and try again. It's a valid
+		 * situation and not any different from the other retry
+		 * conditions.
+		 */
+		if (unlikely(!newowner)) {
+			ret = -EAGAIN;
+			goto handle_err;
+		}
 	} else {
 		WARN_ON_ONCE(argowner != current);
 		if (oldowner == current) {