From: Peter Zijlstra peterz@infradead.org
[ 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 markus@trippelsdorf.de Bug-Spotted-by: Thomas Gleixner tglx@linutronix.de Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) peterz@infradead.org Cc: Florian Weimer fweimer@redhat.com Cc: Darren Hart dvhart@infradead.org Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior bigeasy@linutronix.de Cc: Markus Trippelsdorf markus@trippelsdorf.de Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170519154850.mlomgdsd26drq5j6@hirez.programming.k... Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner tglx@linutronix.de Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei thunder.leizhen@huawei.com --- kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c index 18154e10d63a23b..532986d82179b69 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.