Re: commit cfafcd117 "futex: Rework futex_lock_pi() to use rt_mutex_*_proxy_lock()" causes glibc nptl/tst-robustpi8 failure

From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Cc: Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@trippelsdorf.de>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: commit cfafcd117 "futex: Rework futex_lock_pi() to use rt_mutex_*_proxy_lock()" causes glibc nptl/tst-robustpi8 failure
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 14:30:54 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170518123054.cp7fqnclvjjgbtyd@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170518114323.um3znbcoaxo7woo3@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 01:43:23PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 10:34:34AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > On 05/18/2017 10:31 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > > But it does that after building the tst-robustpi8 thing, so I seem to
> > > have all I need here.
> > 
> > Great, have fun figuring out what's going on. :-/
> 
> 
> 
>  ld-linux-x86-64-2165  [018] ....   290.235869: sched_process_fork: comm=ld-linux-x86-64 pid=2165 child_comm=ld-linux-x86-64 child_pid=2166
>  ld-linux-x86-64-2166  [019] ....   290.436398: handle_futex_death: 00007f066634e870: 876 -> 40000000
>  ld-linux-x86-64-2166  [019] ....   290.436399: handle_futex_death: 00007f066634e0c8: 876 -> 40000000
>  ld-linux-x86-64-2166  [019] ....   290.436400: handle_futex_death: 00007f066634ee38: 80000876 -> c0000000
>  ld-linux-x86-64-2166  [019] ....   290.436401: sched_process_exit: comm=ld-linux-x86-64 pid=2166 prio=120
>  ld-linux-x86-64-2164  [019] ...1   290.436546: attach_to_pi_owner: 2: 00007f066634e078 = 80000876
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  ld-linux-x86-64-2183  [026] ....   827.987914: sched_process_fork: comm=ld-linux-x86-64 pid=2183 child_comm=ld-linux-x86-64 child_pid=2187
>  ld-linux-x86-64-2187  [029] ....   828.188218: handle_futex_death: 00007f76dd361690: 88b -> 40000000
>  ld-linux-x86-64-2187  [029] ....   828.188219: handle_futex_death: 00007f76dd361898: 8000088b -> c0000000
>  ld-linux-x86-64-2187  [029] ....   828.188220: handle_futex_death: 00007f76dd3615c8: 8000088b -> c0000000
>  ld-linux-x86-64-2187  [029] ....   828.188220: handle_futex_death: 00007f76dd3612d0: 8000088b -> c0000000
>  ld-linux-x86-64-2187  [029] ....   828.188220: handle_futex_death: 00007f76dd361af0: 8000088b -> c0000000
>  ld-linux-x86-64-2187  [029] ....   828.188221: handle_futex_death: 00007f76dd361168: 8000088b -> c0000000
>  ld-linux-x86-64-2187  [029] ....   828.188222: sched_process_exit: comm=ld-linux-x86-64 pid=2187 prio=120
>  ld-linux-x86-64-2182  [019] ...1   828.188373: attach_to_pi_owner: 2: 00007f76dd361000 = 8000088b
> 
> 
> 
> In both cases we fail in FUTEX_LOCK_PI trying to acquire a futex owned
> by a dead task, resulting in the -ESRCH.
> 
> Now, pthread_mutex_lock() isn't expecting -ESRCH for robust futexes,
> because for robust we'd expect handle_futex_death() to clear out the
> futex value and set OWNER_DIED, as can be seen above.
> 
> The problem is however that the futex address we fail on, doesn't appear
> to have been fixed up, so its either not on the robust list, or the
> robust list got broken.

The robust list walk finishes without issue. So no premature
terminations. The address really isn't on it.