[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <811a97651e144b83a35fd7eb713aeeae@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2023 18:30:05 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Jann Horn' <jannh@...gle.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"Pavel Begunkov" <asml.silence@...il.com>,
io-uring <io-uring@...r.kernel.org>
CC: kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Subject: RE: io_uring: incorrect assumption about mutex behavior on unlock?
From: Jann Horn
> Sent: 01 December 2023 16:41
>
> mutex_unlock() has a different API contract compared to spin_unlock().
> spin_unlock() can be used to release ownership of an object, so that
> as soon as the spinlock is unlocked, another task is allowed to free
> the object containing the spinlock.
> mutex_unlock() does not support this kind of usage: The caller of
> mutex_unlock() must ensure that the mutex stays alive until
> mutex_unlock() has returned.
The problem sequence might be:
Thread A Thread B
mutex_lock()
code to stop mutex being requested
...
mutex_lock() - sleeps
mutex_unlock()...
Waiters woken...
isr and/or pre-empted
- wakes up
mutex_unlock()
free()
... more kernel code access the mutex
BOOOM
What happens in a PREEMPT_RT kernel where most of the spin_unlock()
get replaced by mutex_unlock().
Seems like they can potentially access a freed mutex?
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists