Skip to content

L
linux
Switch branch/tag
  1. 17 Jul, 2014 36 commits
  3. 16 Jul, 2014 4 commits
    • Thomas Gleixner's avatar
      rtmutex: Plug slow unlock race · 0c57bb13
      Thomas Gleixner authored 
      commit 27e35715 upstream.

When the rtmutex fast path is enabled the slow unlock function can
create the following situation:

spin_lock(foo->m->wait_lock);
foo->m->owner = NULL;
	    			rt_mutex_lock(foo->m); <-- fast path
				free = atomic_dec_and_test(foo->refcnt);
				rt_mutex_unlock(foo->m); <-- fast path
				if (free)
				   kfree(foo);

spin_unlock(foo->m->wait_lock); <--- Use after free.

Plug the race by changing the slow unlock to the following scheme:

     while (!rt_mutex_has_waiters(m)) {
     	    /* Clear the waiters bit in m->owner */
	    clear_rt_mutex_waiters(m);
      	    owner = rt_mutex_owner(m);
      	    spin_unlock(m->wait_lock);
      	    if (cmpxchg(m->owner, owner, 0) == owner)
      	       return;
      	    spin_lock(m->wait_lock);
     }

So in case of a new waiter incoming while the owner tries the slow
path unlock we have two situations:

 unlock(wait_lock);
					lock(wait_lock);
 cmpxchg(p, owner, 0) == owner
 	    	   			mark_rt_mutex_waiters(lock);
	 				acquire(lock);

Or:

 unlock(wait_lock);
					lock(wait_lock);
	 				mark_rt_mutex_waiters(lock);
 cmpxchg(p, owner, 0) != owner
					enqueue_waiter();
					unlock(wait_lock);
 lock(wait_lock);
 wakeup_next waiter();
 unlock(wait_lock);
					lock(wait_lock);
					acquire(lock);

If the fast path is disabled, then the simple

   m->owner = NULL;
   unlock(m->wait_lock);

is sufficient as all access to m->owner is serialized via
m->wait_lock;

Also document and clarify the wakeup_next_waiter function as suggested
by Oleg Nesterov.
Reported-by: default avatarSteven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarThomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: default avatarSteven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140611183852.937945560@linutronix.deSigned-off-by: default avatarThomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: default avatarMike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarJiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>
      0c57bb13
    • Thomas Gleixner's avatar
      rtmutex: Handle deadlock detection smarter · a2e64fcd
      Thomas Gleixner authored 
      commit 3d5c9340 upstream.

Even in the case when deadlock detection is not requested by the
caller, we can detect deadlocks. Right now the code stops the lock
chain walk and keeps the waiter enqueued, even on itself. Silly not to
yell when such a scenario is detected and to keep the waiter enqueued.

Return -EDEADLK unconditionally and handle it at the call sites.

The futex calls return -EDEADLK. The non futex ones dequeue the
waiter, throw a warning and put the task into a schedule loop.

Tagged for stable as it makes the code more robust.
Signed-off-by: default avatarThomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Brad Mouring <bmouring@ni.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140605152801.836501969@linutronix.deSigned-off-by: default avatarThomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: default avatarMike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarJiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>
      a2e64fcd
    • Thomas Gleixner's avatar
      rtmutex: Detect changes in the pi lock chain · 7ae4100d
      Thomas Gleixner authored 
      commit 82084984 upstream.

When we walk the lock chain, we drop all locks after each step. So the
lock chain can change under us before we reacquire the locks. That's
harmless in principle as we just follow the wrong lock path. But it
can lead to a false positive in the dead lock detection logic:

T0 holds L0
T0 blocks on L1 held by T1
T1 blocks on L2 held by T2
T2 blocks on L3 held by T3
T4 blocks on L4 held by T4

Now we walk the chain

lock T1 -> lock L2 -> adjust L2 -> unlock T1 ->
     lock T2 ->  adjust T2 ->  drop locks

T2 times out and blocks on L0

Now we continue:

lock T2 -> lock L0 -> deadlock detected, but it's not a deadlock at all.

Brad tried to work around that in the deadlock detection logic itself,
but the more I looked at it the less I liked it, because it's crystal
ball magic after the fact.

We actually can detect a chain change very simple:

lock T1 -> lock L2 -> adjust L2 -> unlock T1 -> lock T2 -> adjust T2 ->

     next_lock = T2->pi_blocked_on->lock;

drop locks

T2 times out and blocks on L0

Now we continue:

lock T2 ->

     if (next_lock != T2->pi_blocked_on->lock)
     	   return;

So if we detect that T2 is now blocked on a different lock we stop the
chain walk. That's also correct in the following scenario:

lock T1 -> lock L2 -> adjust L2 -> unlock T1 -> lock T2 -> adjust T2 ->

     next_lock = T2->pi_blocked_on->lock;

drop locks

T3 times out and drops L3
T2 acquires L3 and blocks on L4 now

Now we continue:

lock T2 ->

     if (next_lock != T2->pi_blocked_on->lock)
     	   return;

We don't have to follow up the chain at that point, because T2
propagated our priority up to T4 already.

[ Folded a cleanup patch from peterz ]
Signed-off-by: default avatarThomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reported-by: default avatarBrad Mouring <bmouring@ni.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140605152801.930031935@linutronix.deSigned-off-by: default avatarMike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarJiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>
      7ae4100d
    • Thomas Gleixner's avatar
      rtmutex: Fix deadlock detector for real · 9e30d699
      Thomas Gleixner authored 
      commit 397335f0 upstream.

The current deadlock detection logic does not work reliably due to the
following early exit path:

	/*
	 * Drop out, when the task has no waiters. Note,
	 * top_waiter can be NULL, when we are in the deboosting
	 * mode!
	 */
	if (top_waiter && (!task_has_pi_waiters(task) ||
			   top_waiter != task_top_pi_waiter(task)))
		goto out_unlock_pi;

So this not only exits when the task has no waiters, it also exits
unconditionally when the current waiter is not the top priority waiter
of the task.

So in a nested locking scenario, it might abort the lock chain walk
and therefor miss a potential deadlock.

Simple fix: Continue the chain walk, when deadlock detection is
enabled.

We also avoid the whole enqueue, if we detect the deadlock right away
(A-A). It's an optimization, but also prevents that another waiter who
comes in after the detection and before the task has undone the damage
observes the situation and detects the deadlock and returns
-EDEADLOCK, which is wrong as the other task is not in a deadlock
situation.
Signed-off-by: default avatarThomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: default avatarSteven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140522031949.725272460@linutronix.deSigned-off-by: default avatarThomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: default avatarMike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarJiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>
      9e30d699
GitLab Nexedi Edition | About GitLab | About Nexedi | 沪ICP备2021021310号-2 | 沪ICP备2021021310号-7