From: Wander Lairson Costa wander@redhat.com
commit db370a8b9f67ae5f17e3d5482493294467784504 upstream.
Let L1 and L2 be two spinlocks.
Let T1 be a task holding L1 and blocked on L2. T1, currently, is the top waiter of L2.
Let T2 be the task holding L2.
Let T3 be a task trying to acquire L1.
The following events will lead to a state in which the wait queue of L2 isn't empty, but no task actually holds the lock.
T1 T2 T3 == == ==
spin_lock(L1) | raw_spin_lock(L1->wait_lock) | rtlock_slowlock_locked(L1) | | task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(L1, T3) | | | orig_waiter->lock = L1 | | | orig_waiter->task = T3 | | | raw_spin_unlock(L1->wait_lock) | | | rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(T1, L1, L2, orig_waiter, T3) spin_unlock(L2) | | | | | rt_mutex_slowunlock(L2) | | | | | | raw_spin_lock(L2->wait_lock) | | | | | | wakeup(T1) | | | | | | raw_spin_unlock(L2->wait_lock) | | | | | | | | waiter = T1->pi_blocked_on | | | | waiter == rt_mutex_top_waiter(L2) | | | | waiter->task == T1 | | | | raw_spin_lock(L2->wait_lock) | | | | dequeue(L2, waiter) | | | | update_prio(waiter, T1) | | | | enqueue(L2, waiter) | | | | waiter != rt_mutex_top_waiter(L2) | | | | L2->owner == NULL | | | | wakeup(T1) | | | | raw_spin_unlock(L2->wait_lock) T1 wakes up T1 != top_waiter(L2) schedule_rtlock()
If the deadline of T1 is updated before the call to update_prio(), and the new deadline is greater than the deadline of the second top waiter, then after the requeue, T1 is no longer the top waiter, and the wrong task is woken up which will then go back to sleep because it is not the top waiter.
This can be reproduced in PREEMPT_RT with stress-ng:
while true; do stress-ng --sched deadline --sched-period 1000000000 \ --sched-runtime 800000000 --sched-deadline \ 1000000000 --mmapfork 23 -t 20 done
A similar issue was pointed out by Thomas versus the cases where the top waiter drops out early due to a signal or timeout, which is a general issue for all regular rtmutex use cases, e.g. futex.
The problematic code is in rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain():
// Save the top waiter before dequeue/enqueue prerequeue_top_waiter = rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock);
rt_mutex_dequeue(lock, waiter); waiter_update_prio(waiter, task); rt_mutex_enqueue(lock, waiter);
// Lock has no owner? if (!rt_mutex_owner(lock)) { // Top waiter changed ----> if (prerequeue_top_waiter != rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock)) ----> wake_up_state(waiter->task, waiter->wake_state);
This only takes the case into account where @waiter is the new top waiter due to the requeue operation.
But it fails to handle the case where @waiter is not longer the top waiter due to the requeue operation.
Ensure that the new top waiter is woken up so in all cases so it can take over the ownerless lock.
[ tglx: Amend changelog, add Fixes tag ]
Fixes: c014ef69b3ac ("locking/rtmutex: Add wake_state to rt_mutex_waiter") Signed-off-by: Wander Lairson Costa wander@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner tglx@linutronix.de Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230117172649.52465-1-wander@redhat.com Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230202123020.14844-1-wander@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org --- kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c +++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c @@ -901,8 +901,9 @@ static int __sched rt_mutex_adjust_prio_ * then we need to wake the new top waiter up to try * to get the lock. */ - if (prerequeue_top_waiter != rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock)) - wake_up_state(waiter->task, waiter->wake_state); + top_waiter = rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock); + if (prerequeue_top_waiter != top_waiter) + wake_up_state(top_waiter->task, top_waiter->wake_state); raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock); return 0; }