From 50801cdc86003c4e20b9ae668cf2659d0218cfcc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Peter Zijlstra Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2021 21:46:16 +0800 Subject: futex,rt_mutex: Introduce rt_mutex_init_waiter() [ Upstream commit 50809358dd7199aa7ce232f6877dd09ec30ef374 ] Since there's already two copies of this code, introduce a helper now before adding a third one. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Cc: juri.lelli@arm.com Cc: bigeasy@linutronix.de Cc: xlpang@redhat.com Cc: rostedt@goodmis.org Cc: mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com Cc: jdesfossez@efficios.com Cc: dvhart@infradead.org Cc: bristot@redhat.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170322104151.950039479@infradead.org Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei Acked-by: Joe Korty Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 12 +++++++++--- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) (limited to 'kernel/locking/rtmutex.c') diff --git a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c index 1c0cb5c3c6ad..fa24df4bc7a8 100644 --- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c +++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c @@ -1155,6 +1155,14 @@ void rt_mutex_adjust_pi(struct task_struct *task) next_lock, NULL, task); } +void rt_mutex_init_waiter(struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter) +{ + debug_rt_mutex_init_waiter(waiter); + RB_CLEAR_NODE(&waiter->pi_tree_entry); + RB_CLEAR_NODE(&waiter->tree_entry); + waiter->task = NULL; +} + /** * __rt_mutex_slowlock() - Perform the wait-wake-try-to-take loop * @lock: the rt_mutex to take @@ -1236,9 +1244,7 @@ rt_mutex_slowlock(struct rt_mutex *lock, int state, struct rt_mutex_waiter waiter; int ret = 0; - debug_rt_mutex_init_waiter(&waiter); - RB_CLEAR_NODE(&waiter.pi_tree_entry); - RB_CLEAR_NODE(&waiter.tree_entry); + rt_mutex_init_waiter(&waiter); raw_spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock); -- cgit v1.2.3 From b5dac38eb0ff3cbef23afd36d6822291a2a757a5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Peter Zijlstra Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2021 21:46:18 +0800 Subject: futex: Rework futex_lock_pi() to use rt_mutex_*_proxy_lock() [ Upstream commit cfafcd117da0216520568c195cb2f6cd1980c4bb ] By changing futex_lock_pi() to use rt_mutex_*_proxy_lock() all wait_list modifications are done under both hb->lock and wait_lock. This closes the obvious interleave pattern between futex_lock_pi() and futex_unlock_pi(), but not entirely so. See below: Before: futex_lock_pi() futex_unlock_pi() unlock hb->lock lock hb->lock unlock hb->lock lock rt_mutex->wait_lock unlock rt_mutex_wait_lock -EAGAIN lock rt_mutex->wait_lock list_add unlock rt_mutex->wait_lock schedule() lock rt_mutex->wait_lock list_del unlock rt_mutex->wait_lock -EAGAIN lock hb->lock After: futex_lock_pi() futex_unlock_pi() lock hb->lock lock rt_mutex->wait_lock list_add unlock rt_mutex->wait_lock unlock hb->lock schedule() lock hb->lock unlock hb->lock lock hb->lock lock rt_mutex->wait_lock list_del unlock rt_mutex->wait_lock lock rt_mutex->wait_lock unlock rt_mutex_wait_lock -EAGAIN unlock hb->lock It does however solve the earlier starvation/live-lock scenario which got introduced with the -EAGAIN since unlike the before scenario; where the -EAGAIN happens while futex_unlock_pi() doesn't hold any locks; in the after scenario it happens while futex_unlock_pi() actually holds a lock, and then it is serialized on that lock. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Cc: juri.lelli@arm.com Cc: bigeasy@linutronix.de Cc: xlpang@redhat.com Cc: rostedt@goodmis.org Cc: mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com Cc: jdesfossez@efficios.com Cc: dvhart@infradead.org Cc: bristot@redhat.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170322104152.062785528@infradead.org Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei Acked-by: Joe Korty Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 26 +++++++------------------- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) (limited to 'kernel/locking/rtmutex.c') diff --git a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c index fa24df4bc7a8..98e45a2e1236 100644 --- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c +++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c @@ -1488,19 +1488,6 @@ int __sched rt_mutex_lock_interruptible(struct rt_mutex *lock) } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rt_mutex_lock_interruptible); -/* - * Futex variant with full deadlock detection. - * Futex variants must not use the fast-path, see __rt_mutex_futex_unlock(). - */ -int __sched rt_mutex_timed_futex_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock, - struct hrtimer_sleeper *timeout) -{ - might_sleep(); - - return rt_mutex_slowlock(lock, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, - timeout, RT_MUTEX_FULL_CHAINWALK); -} - /* * Futex variant, must not use fastpath. */ @@ -1774,12 +1761,6 @@ int rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock, /* sleep on the mutex */ ret = __rt_mutex_slowlock(lock, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, to, waiter); - /* - * try_to_take_rt_mutex() sets the waiter bit unconditionally. We might - * have to fix that up. - */ - fixup_rt_mutex_waiters(lock); - raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock); return ret; @@ -1819,6 +1800,13 @@ bool rt_mutex_cleanup_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock, fixup_rt_mutex_waiters(lock); cleanup = true; } + + /* + * try_to_take_rt_mutex() sets the waiter bit unconditionally. We might + * have to fix that up. + */ + fixup_rt_mutex_waiters(lock); + raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock); return cleanup; -- cgit v1.2.3 From 6ef8ca1e4f08745b1e56b289bf418474becc937b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Gleixner Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2021 21:46:20 +0800 Subject: rtmutex: Make wait_lock irq safe [ Upstream commit b4abf91047cf054f203dcfac97e1038388826937 ] Sasha reported a lockdep splat about a potential deadlock between RCU boosting rtmutex and the posix timer it_lock. CPU0 CPU1 rtmutex_lock(&rcu->rt_mutex) spin_lock(&rcu->rt_mutex.wait_lock) local_irq_disable() spin_lock(&timer->it_lock) spin_lock(&rcu->mutex.wait_lock) --> Interrupt spin_lock(&timer->it_lock) This is caused by the following code sequence on CPU1 rcu_read_lock() x = lookup(); if (x) spin_lock_irqsave(&x->it_lock); rcu_read_unlock(); return x; We could fix that in the posix timer code by keeping rcu read locked across the spinlocked and irq disabled section, but the above sequence is common and there is no reason not to support it. Taking rt_mutex.wait_lock irq safe prevents the deadlock. Reported-by: Sasha Levin Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Paul McKenney Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei Acked-by: Joe Korty Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 135 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------- 1 file changed, 72 insertions(+), 63 deletions(-) (limited to 'kernel/locking/rtmutex.c') diff --git a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c index 98e45a2e1236..18154e10d63a 100644 --- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c +++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c @@ -163,13 +163,14 @@ static inline void mark_rt_mutex_waiters(struct rt_mutex *lock) * 2) Drop lock->wait_lock * 3) Try to unlock the lock with cmpxchg */ -static inline bool unlock_rt_mutex_safe(struct rt_mutex *lock) +static inline bool unlock_rt_mutex_safe(struct rt_mutex *lock, + unsigned long flags) __releases(lock->wait_lock) { struct task_struct *owner = rt_mutex_owner(lock); clear_rt_mutex_waiters(lock); - raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock); + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lock->wait_lock, flags); /* * If a new waiter comes in between the unlock and the cmpxchg * we have two situations: @@ -211,11 +212,12 @@ static inline void mark_rt_mutex_waiters(struct rt_mutex *lock) /* * Simple slow path only version: lock->owner is protected by lock->wait_lock. */ -static inline bool unlock_rt_mutex_safe(struct rt_mutex *lock) +static inline bool unlock_rt_mutex_safe(struct rt_mutex *lock, + unsigned long flags) __releases(lock->wait_lock) { lock->owner = NULL; - raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock); + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lock->wait_lock, flags); return true; } #endif @@ -497,7 +499,6 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(struct task_struct *task, int ret = 0, depth = 0; struct rt_mutex *lock; bool detect_deadlock; - unsigned long flags; bool requeue = true; detect_deadlock = rt_mutex_cond_detect_deadlock(orig_waiter, chwalk); @@ -540,7 +541,7 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(struct task_struct *task, /* * [1] Task cannot go away as we did a get_task() before ! */ - raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&task->pi_lock, flags); + raw_spin_lock_irq(&task->pi_lock); /* * [2] Get the waiter on which @task is blocked on. @@ -624,7 +625,7 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(struct task_struct *task, * operations. */ if (!raw_spin_trylock(&lock->wait_lock)) { - raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags); + raw_spin_unlock_irq(&task->pi_lock); cpu_relax(); goto retry; } @@ -655,7 +656,7 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(struct task_struct *task, /* * No requeue[7] here. Just release @task [8] */ - raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags); + raw_spin_unlock(&task->pi_lock); put_task_struct(task); /* @@ -663,14 +664,14 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(struct task_struct *task, * If there is no owner of the lock, end of chain. */ if (!rt_mutex_owner(lock)) { - raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock); + raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock); return 0; } /* [10] Grab the next task, i.e. owner of @lock */ task = rt_mutex_owner(lock); get_task_struct(task); - raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&task->pi_lock, flags); + raw_spin_lock(&task->pi_lock); /* * No requeue [11] here. We just do deadlock detection. @@ -685,8 +686,8 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(struct task_struct *task, top_waiter = rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock); /* [13] Drop locks */ - raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags); - raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock); + raw_spin_unlock(&task->pi_lock); + raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock); /* If owner is not blocked, end of chain. */ if (!next_lock) @@ -707,7 +708,7 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(struct task_struct *task, rt_mutex_enqueue(lock, waiter); /* [8] Release the task */ - raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags); + raw_spin_unlock(&task->pi_lock); put_task_struct(task); /* @@ -725,14 +726,14 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(struct task_struct *task, */ if (prerequeue_top_waiter != rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock)) wake_up_process(rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock)->task); - raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock); + raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock); return 0; } /* [10] Grab the next task, i.e. the owner of @lock */ task = rt_mutex_owner(lock); get_task_struct(task); - raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&task->pi_lock, flags); + raw_spin_lock(&task->pi_lock); /* [11] requeue the pi waiters if necessary */ if (waiter == rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock)) { @@ -786,8 +787,8 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(struct task_struct *task, top_waiter = rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock); /* [13] Drop the locks */ - raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags); - raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock); + raw_spin_unlock(&task->pi_lock); + raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock); /* * Make the actual exit decisions [12], based on the stored @@ -810,7 +811,7 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(struct task_struct *task, goto again; out_unlock_pi: - raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags); + raw_spin_unlock_irq(&task->pi_lock); out_put_task: put_task_struct(task); @@ -820,7 +821,7 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(struct task_struct *task, /* * Try to take an rt-mutex * - * Must be called with lock->wait_lock held. + * Must be called with lock->wait_lock held and interrupts disabled * * @lock: The lock to be acquired. * @task: The task which wants to acquire the lock @@ -830,8 +831,6 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(struct task_struct *task, static int try_to_take_rt_mutex(struct rt_mutex *lock, struct task_struct *task, struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter) { - unsigned long flags; - /* * Before testing whether we can acquire @lock, we set the * RT_MUTEX_HAS_WAITERS bit in @lock->owner. This forces all @@ -916,7 +915,7 @@ static int try_to_take_rt_mutex(struct rt_mutex *lock, struct task_struct *task, * case, but conditionals are more expensive than a redundant * store. */ - raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&task->pi_lock, flags); + raw_spin_lock(&task->pi_lock); task->pi_blocked_on = NULL; /* * Finish the lock acquisition. @task is the new owner. If @@ -925,7 +924,7 @@ static int try_to_take_rt_mutex(struct rt_mutex *lock, struct task_struct *task, */ if (rt_mutex_has_waiters(lock)) rt_mutex_enqueue_pi(task, rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock)); - raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags); + raw_spin_unlock(&task->pi_lock); takeit: /* We got the lock. */ @@ -945,7 +944,7 @@ takeit: * * Prepare waiter and propagate pi chain * - * This must be called with lock->wait_lock held. + * This must be called with lock->wait_lock held and interrupts disabled */ static int task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(struct rt_mutex *lock, struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter, @@ -956,7 +955,6 @@ static int task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(struct rt_mutex *lock, struct rt_mutex_waiter *top_waiter = waiter; struct rt_mutex *next_lock; int chain_walk = 0, res; - unsigned long flags; /* * Early deadlock detection. We really don't want the task to @@ -970,7 +968,7 @@ static int task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(struct rt_mutex *lock, if (owner == task) return -EDEADLK; - raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&task->pi_lock, flags); + raw_spin_lock(&task->pi_lock); __rt_mutex_adjust_prio(task); waiter->task = task; waiter->lock = lock; @@ -983,12 +981,12 @@ static int task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(struct rt_mutex *lock, task->pi_blocked_on = waiter; - raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags); + raw_spin_unlock(&task->pi_lock); if (!owner) return 0; - raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&owner->pi_lock, flags); + raw_spin_lock(&owner->pi_lock); if (waiter == rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock)) { rt_mutex_dequeue_pi(owner, top_waiter); rt_mutex_enqueue_pi(owner, waiter); @@ -1003,7 +1001,7 @@ static int task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(struct rt_mutex *lock, /* Store the lock on which owner is blocked or NULL */ next_lock = task_blocked_on_lock(owner); - raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&owner->pi_lock, flags); + raw_spin_unlock(&owner->pi_lock); /* * Even if full deadlock detection is on, if the owner is not * blocked itself, we can avoid finding this out in the chain @@ -1019,12 +1017,12 @@ static int task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(struct rt_mutex *lock, */ get_task_struct(owner); - raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock); + raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock); res = rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(owner, chwalk, lock, next_lock, waiter, task); - raw_spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock); + raw_spin_lock_irq(&lock->wait_lock); return res; } @@ -1033,15 +1031,14 @@ static int task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(struct rt_mutex *lock, * Remove the top waiter from the current tasks pi waiter tree and * queue it up. * - * Called with lock->wait_lock held. + * Called with lock->wait_lock held and interrupts disabled. */ static void mark_wakeup_next_waiter(struct wake_q_head *wake_q, struct rt_mutex *lock) { struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter; - unsigned long flags; - raw_spin_lock_irqsave(¤t->pi_lock, flags); + raw_spin_lock(¤t->pi_lock); waiter = rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock); @@ -1063,7 +1060,7 @@ static void mark_wakeup_next_waiter(struct wake_q_head *wake_q, */ lock->owner = (void *) RT_MUTEX_HAS_WAITERS; - raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(¤t->pi_lock, flags); + raw_spin_unlock(¤t->pi_lock); wake_q_add(wake_q, waiter->task); } @@ -1071,7 +1068,7 @@ static void mark_wakeup_next_waiter(struct wake_q_head *wake_q, /* * Remove a waiter from a lock and give up * - * Must be called with lock->wait_lock held and + * Must be called with lock->wait_lock held and interrupts disabled. I must * have just failed to try_to_take_rt_mutex(). */ static void remove_waiter(struct rt_mutex *lock, @@ -1080,12 +1077,11 @@ static void remove_waiter(struct rt_mutex *lock, bool is_top_waiter = (waiter == rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock)); struct task_struct *owner = rt_mutex_owner(lock); struct rt_mutex *next_lock; - unsigned long flags; - raw_spin_lock_irqsave(¤t->pi_lock, flags); + raw_spin_lock(¤t->pi_lock); rt_mutex_dequeue(lock, waiter); current->pi_blocked_on = NULL; - raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(¤t->pi_lock, flags); + raw_spin_unlock(¤t->pi_lock); /* * Only update priority if the waiter was the highest priority @@ -1094,7 +1090,7 @@ static void remove_waiter(struct rt_mutex *lock, if (!owner || !is_top_waiter) return; - raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&owner->pi_lock, flags); + raw_spin_lock(&owner->pi_lock); rt_mutex_dequeue_pi(owner, waiter); @@ -1106,7 +1102,7 @@ static void remove_waiter(struct rt_mutex *lock, /* Store the lock on which owner is blocked or NULL */ next_lock = task_blocked_on_lock(owner); - raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&owner->pi_lock, flags); + raw_spin_unlock(&owner->pi_lock); /* * Don't walk the chain, if the owner task is not blocked @@ -1118,12 +1114,12 @@ static void remove_waiter(struct rt_mutex *lock, /* gets dropped in rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain()! */ get_task_struct(owner); - raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock); + raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock); rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(owner, RT_MUTEX_MIN_CHAINWALK, lock, next_lock, NULL, current); - raw_spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock); + raw_spin_lock_irq(&lock->wait_lock); } /* @@ -1167,11 +1163,11 @@ void rt_mutex_init_waiter(struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter) * __rt_mutex_slowlock() - Perform the wait-wake-try-to-take loop * @lock: the rt_mutex to take * @state: the state the task should block in (TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE - * or TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE) + * or TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE) * @timeout: the pre-initialized and started timer, or NULL for none * @waiter: the pre-initialized rt_mutex_waiter * - * lock->wait_lock must be held by the caller. + * Must be called with lock->wait_lock held and interrupts disabled */ static int __sched __rt_mutex_slowlock(struct rt_mutex *lock, int state, @@ -1199,13 +1195,13 @@ __rt_mutex_slowlock(struct rt_mutex *lock, int state, break; } - raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock); + raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock); debug_rt_mutex_print_deadlock(waiter); schedule(); - raw_spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock); + raw_spin_lock_irq(&lock->wait_lock); set_current_state(state); } @@ -1242,15 +1238,24 @@ rt_mutex_slowlock(struct rt_mutex *lock, int state, enum rtmutex_chainwalk chwalk) { struct rt_mutex_waiter waiter; + unsigned long flags; int ret = 0; rt_mutex_init_waiter(&waiter); - raw_spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock); + /* + * Technically we could use raw_spin_[un]lock_irq() here, but this can + * be called in early boot if the cmpxchg() fast path is disabled + * (debug, no architecture support). In this case we will acquire the + * rtmutex with lock->wait_lock held. But we cannot unconditionally + * enable interrupts in that early boot case. So we need to use the + * irqsave/restore variants. + */ + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&lock->wait_lock, flags); /* Try to acquire the lock again: */ if (try_to_take_rt_mutex(lock, current, NULL)) { - raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock); + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lock->wait_lock, flags); return 0; } @@ -1279,7 +1284,7 @@ rt_mutex_slowlock(struct rt_mutex *lock, int state, */ fixup_rt_mutex_waiters(lock); - raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock); + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lock->wait_lock, flags); /* Remove pending timer: */ if (unlikely(timeout)) @@ -1308,6 +1313,7 @@ static inline int __rt_mutex_slowtrylock(struct rt_mutex *lock) */ static inline int rt_mutex_slowtrylock(struct rt_mutex *lock) { + unsigned long flags; int ret; /* @@ -1319,14 +1325,14 @@ static inline int rt_mutex_slowtrylock(struct rt_mutex *lock) return 0; /* - * The mutex has currently no owner. Lock the wait lock and - * try to acquire the lock. + * The mutex has currently no owner. Lock the wait lock and try to + * acquire the lock. We use irqsave here to support early boot calls. */ - raw_spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock); + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&lock->wait_lock, flags); ret = __rt_mutex_slowtrylock(lock); - raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock); + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lock->wait_lock, flags); return ret; } @@ -1338,7 +1344,10 @@ static inline int rt_mutex_slowtrylock(struct rt_mutex *lock) static bool __sched rt_mutex_slowunlock(struct rt_mutex *lock, struct wake_q_head *wake_q) { - raw_spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock); + unsigned long flags; + + /* irqsave required to support early boot calls */ + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&lock->wait_lock, flags); debug_rt_mutex_unlock(lock); @@ -1375,10 +1384,10 @@ static bool __sched rt_mutex_slowunlock(struct rt_mutex *lock, */ while (!rt_mutex_has_waiters(lock)) { /* Drops lock->wait_lock ! */ - if (unlock_rt_mutex_safe(lock) == true) + if (unlock_rt_mutex_safe(lock, flags) == true) return false; /* Relock the rtmutex and try again */ - raw_spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock); + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&lock->wait_lock, flags); } /* @@ -1389,7 +1398,7 @@ static bool __sched rt_mutex_slowunlock(struct rt_mutex *lock, */ mark_wakeup_next_waiter(wake_q, lock); - raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock); + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lock->wait_lock, flags); /* check PI boosting */ return true; @@ -1680,10 +1689,10 @@ int rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock, { int ret; - raw_spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock); + raw_spin_lock_irq(&lock->wait_lock); if (try_to_take_rt_mutex(lock, task, NULL)) { - raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock); + raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock); return 1; } @@ -1704,7 +1713,7 @@ int rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock, if (unlikely(ret)) remove_waiter(lock, waiter); - raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock); + raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock); debug_rt_mutex_print_deadlock(waiter); @@ -1754,14 +1763,14 @@ int rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock, { int ret; - raw_spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock); + raw_spin_lock_irq(&lock->wait_lock); set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); /* sleep on the mutex */ ret = __rt_mutex_slowlock(lock, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, to, waiter); - raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock); + raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock); return ret; } -- cgit v1.2.3 From 66edc0dded9863962505c42c0f726db97204ed4e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Peter Zijlstra Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2021 21:46:23 +0800 Subject: futex,rt_mutex: Fix rt_mutex_cleanup_proxy_lock() [ Upstream commit 04dc1b2fff4e96cb4142227fbdc63c8871ad4ed9 ] Markus reported that the glibc/nptl/tst-robustpi8 test was failing after commit: cfafcd117da0 ("futex: Rework futex_lock_pi() to use rt_mutex_*_proxy_lock()") The following trace shows the problem: ld-linux-x86-64-2161 [019] .... 410.760971: SyS_futex: 00007ffbeb76b028: 80000875 op=FUTEX_LOCK_PI ld-linux-x86-64-2161 [019] ...1 410.760972: lock_pi_update_atomic: 00007ffbeb76b028: curval=80000875 uval=80000875 newval=80000875 ret=0 ld-linux-x86-64-2165 [011] .... 410.760978: SyS_futex: 00007ffbeb76b028: 80000875 op=FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI ld-linux-x86-64-2165 [011] d..1 410.760979: do_futex: 00007ffbeb76b028: curval=80000875 uval=80000875 newval=80000871 ret=0 ld-linux-x86-64-2165 [011] .... 410.760980: SyS_futex: 00007ffbeb76b028: 80000871 ret=0000 ld-linux-x86-64-2161 [019] .... 410.760980: SyS_futex: 00007ffbeb76b028: 80000871 ret=ETIMEDOUT Task 2165 does an UNLOCK_PI, assigning the lock to the waiter task 2161 which then returns with -ETIMEDOUT. That wrecks the lock state, because now the owner isn't aware it acquired the lock and removes the pending robust list entry. If 2161 is killed, the robust list will not clear out this futex and the subsequent acquire on this futex will then (correctly) result in -ESRCH which is unexpected by glibc, triggers an internal assertion and dies. Task 2161 Task 2165 rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock() timeout(); /* T2161 is still queued in the waiter list */ return -ETIMEDOUT; futex_unlock_pi() spin_lock(hb->lock); rtmutex_unlock() remove_rtmutex_waiter(T2161); mark_lock_available(); /* Make the next waiter owner of the user space side */ futex_uval = 2161; spin_unlock(hb->lock); spin_lock(hb->lock); rt_mutex_cleanup_proxy_lock() if (rtmutex_owner() !== current) ... return FAIL; .... return -ETIMEOUT; This means that rt_mutex_cleanup_proxy_lock() needs to call try_to_take_rt_mutex() so it can take over the rtmutex correctly which was assigned by the waker. If the rtmutex is owned by some other task then this call is harmless and just confirmes that the waiter is not able to acquire it. While there, fix what looks like a merge error which resulted in rt_mutex_cleanup_proxy_lock() having two calls to fixup_rt_mutex_waiters() and rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock() not having any. Both should have one, since both potentially touch the waiter list. Fixes: 38d589f2fd08 ("futex,rt_mutex: Restructure rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock()") Reported-by: Markus Trippelsdorf Bug-Spotted-by: Thomas Gleixner Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Cc: Florian Weimer Cc: Darren Hart Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Cc: Markus Trippelsdorf Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170519154850.mlomgdsd26drq5j6@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei Acked-by: Joe Korty Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) (limited to 'kernel/locking/rtmutex.c') diff --git a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c index 18154e10d63a..532986d82179 100644 --- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c +++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c @@ -1764,12 +1764,14 @@ int rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock, int ret; raw_spin_lock_irq(&lock->wait_lock); - - set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); - /* sleep on the mutex */ + set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); ret = __rt_mutex_slowlock(lock, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, to, waiter); - + /* + * try_to_take_rt_mutex() sets the waiter bit unconditionally. We might + * have to fix that up. + */ + fixup_rt_mutex_waiters(lock); raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock); return ret; @@ -1800,16 +1802,26 @@ bool rt_mutex_cleanup_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock, bool cleanup = false; raw_spin_lock_irq(&lock->wait_lock); + /* + * Do an unconditional try-lock, this deals with the lock stealing + * state where __rt_mutex_futex_unlock() -> mark_wakeup_next_waiter() + * sets a NULL owner. + * + * We're not interested in the return value, because the subsequent + * test on rt_mutex_owner() will infer that. If the trylock succeeded, + * we will own the lock and it will have removed the waiter. If we + * failed the trylock, we're still not owner and we need to remove + * ourselves. + */ + try_to_take_rt_mutex(lock, current, waiter); /* * Unless we're the owner; we're still enqueued on the wait_list. * So check if we became owner, if not, take us off the wait_list. */ if (rt_mutex_owner(lock) != current) { remove_waiter(lock, waiter); - fixup_rt_mutex_waiters(lock); cleanup = true; } - /* * try_to_take_rt_mutex() sets the waiter bit unconditionally. We might * have to fix that up. -- cgit v1.2.3