linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH v4] sched: do not call __put_task_struct() on rt if pi_blocked

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aFFqugD6y2OytiaA@uudg.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 10:16:42 -0300
From: "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lgoncalv@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
	Clark Williams <clrkwllms@...nel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	David Vernet <dvernet@...a.com>, Barret Rhoden <brho@...gle.com>,
	Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>, Crystal Wood <crwood@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-devel@...ts.linux.dev,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
	DietmarEggemann@...g.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Wander Lairson Costa <wander@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v4] sched: do not call __put_task_struct() on rt
 if pi_blocked_on is set

On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 11:26:09AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 12:05:14PM -0300, Luis Claudio R. Goncalves wrote:
> > With PREEMPT_RT enabled, some of the calls to put_task_struct() coming
> > from rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain() could happen in preemptible context and
> > with a mutex enqueued. That could lead to this sequence:
> > 
> >         rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain()
> >           put_task_struct()
> >             __put_task_struct()
> >               sched_ext_free()
> >                 spin_lock_irqsave()
> >                   rtlock_lock() --->  TRIGGERS
> >                                       lockdep_assert(!current->pi_blocked_on);
> > 
> > Fix that by unconditionally resorting to the deferred call to
> > __put_task_struct() if PREEMPT_RT is enabled.
> > 
> 
> Should this have a Fixes: tag and go into /urgent?

Makes sense! I will add the tag:

Fixes: 893cdaaa3977b ("sched: avoid false lockdep splat in put_task_struct()")

and resend.

Thank you!
 
> > Suggested-by: Crystal Wood <crwood@...hat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Luis Claudio R. Goncalves <lgoncalv@...hat.com>
> > ---
> > 
> > Resent as a gentle reminder, because this issue results in scary backtraces,
> > not obvious to debug and pinpoint root cause.
> > 
> > v2: (Rostedt) remove the #ifdef from put_task_struct() and create
> >     tsk_is_pi_blocked_on() in sched.h to make the change cleaner.
> > v3: (Sebastian, PeterZ) always call the deferred __put_task_struct() on RT.
> > v4: Fix the implementation of what was requested on v3.
> > 
> >  include/linux/sched/task.h |   17 ++++++++---------
> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/sched/task.h b/include/linux/sched/task.h
> > index 0f2aeb37bbb04..51678a541477a 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/sched/task.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/sched/task.h
> > @@ -134,11 +134,8 @@ static inline void put_task_struct(struct task_struct *t)
> >  	if (!refcount_dec_and_test(&t->usage))
> >  		return;
> >  
> > -	/*
> > -	 * In !RT, it is always safe to call __put_task_struct().
> > -	 * Under RT, we can only call it in preemptible context.
> > -	 */
> > -	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT) || preemptible()) {
> > +	/* In !RT, it is always safe to call __put_task_struct(). */
> > +	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT)) {
> >  		static DEFINE_WAIT_OVERRIDE_MAP(put_task_map, LD_WAIT_SLEEP);
> >  
> >  		lock_map_acquire_try(&put_task_map);
> > @@ -148,11 +145,13 @@ static inline void put_task_struct(struct task_struct *t)
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	/*
> > -	 * under PREEMPT_RT, we can't call put_task_struct
> > +	 * Under PREEMPT_RT, we can't call __put_task_struct
> >  	 * in atomic context because it will indirectly
> > -	 * acquire sleeping locks.
> > +	 * acquire sleeping locks. The same is true if the
> > +	 * current process has a mutex enqueued (blocked on
> > +	 * a PI chain).
> >  	 *
> > -	 * call_rcu() will schedule delayed_put_task_struct_rcu()
> > +	 * call_rcu() will schedule __put_task_struct_rcu_cb()
> >  	 * to be called in process context.
> >  	 *
> >  	 * __put_task_struct() is called when
> > @@ -165,7 +164,7 @@ static inline void put_task_struct(struct task_struct *t)
> >  	 *
> >  	 * delayed_free_task() also uses ->rcu, but it is only called
> >  	 * when it fails to fork a process. Therefore, there is no
> > -	 * way it can conflict with put_task_struct().
> > +	 * way it can conflict with __put_task_struct().
> >  	 */
> >  	call_rcu(&t->rcu, __put_task_struct_rcu_cb);
> >  }
> > 
> > ----- End forwarded message -----
> > 
> 
---end quoted text---