[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241121113629.GH24774@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2024 12:36:29 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Benjamin Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Zimuzo Ezeozue <zezeozue@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Metin Kaya <Metin.Kaya@....com>,
Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@...il.com>,
K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>, kernel-team@...roid.com,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, regressions@...ts.linux.dev,
Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>,
Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [RESEND][PATCH] locking: rtmutex: Fix wake_q logic in
task_blocks_on_rt_mutex
On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 10:46:15AM -0800, John Stultz wrote:
> Anders had bisected a crash using PREEMPT_RT with linux-next and
> isolated it down to commit 894d1b3db41c ("locking/mutex: Remove
> wakeups from under mutex::wait_lock"), where it seemed the
> wake_q structure was somehow getting corrupted causing a null
> pointer traversal.
>
> I was able to easily repoduce this with PREEMPT_RT and managed
> to isolate down that through various call stacks we were
> actually calling wake_up_q() twice on the same wake_q.
>
> I found that in the problematic commit, I had added the
> wake_up_q() call in task_blocks_on_rt_mutex() around
> __ww_mutex_add_waiter(), following a similar pattern in
> __mutex_lock_common().
>
> However, its just wrong. We haven't dropped the lock->wait_lock,
> so its contrary to the point of the original patch. And it
> didn't match the __mutex_lock_common() logic of re-initializing
> the wake_q after calling it midway in the stack.
>
> Looking at it now, the wake_up_q() call is incorrect and should
> just be removed. So drop the erronious logic I had added.
>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Cc: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>
> Cc: Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
> Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
> Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
> Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
> Cc: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> Cc: Benjamin Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>
> Cc: Zimuzo Ezeozue <zezeozue@...gle.com>
> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
> Cc: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
> Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
> Cc: Metin Kaya <Metin.Kaya@....com>
> Cc: Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@...il.com>
> Cc: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Cc: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
> Cc: kernel-team@...roid.com
> Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
> Cc: regressions@...ts.linux.dev
> Cc: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>
> Cc: Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>
> Fixes: 894d1b3db41c ("locking/mutex: Remove wakeups from under mutex::wait_lock")
> Reported-by: Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>
> Reported-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6afb936f-17c7-43fa-90e0-b9e780866097@app.fastmail.com/
> Tested-by: Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>
> Tested-by: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>
> Reviewed-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>
> ---
> Apologies for being noisy, I recognize its only been a week, but
> I wanted to resend this now as the problematic commit just
> landed in Linus' tree and I've not seen this get queued yet.
Right, I picked up the old one a few days ago, but will not be sticking
it in any git tree until -rc1.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists