From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Gratian Crisan <gratian.crisan@ni.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org,
Brandon Streiff <brandon.streiff@ni.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>,
James Minor <james.minor@ni.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] futex: Handle transient "ownerless" rtmutex state correctly
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2020 17:50:20 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3fa8a9a3e447b7216610b01a31310ef1f9f7cd69.camel@gmx.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87sg9pkvf7.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
On Wed, 2020-11-04 at 16:12 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Hrmph. How about a suggested-by, or just take it. That dinky diag hit
the mark (not _entirely_ by accident, but..;) is irrelevant, you did
all of the work to make it a patch.
-Mike
> Gratian managed to trigger the BUG_ON(!newowner) in fixup_pi_state_owner().
> This is one possible chain of events leading to this:
>
> Task Prio Operation
> T1 120 lock(F)
> T2 120 lock(F) -> blocks (top waiter)
> T3 50 (RT) lock(F) -> boosts T3 and blocks (new top waiter)
> XX timeout/ -> wakes T2
> signal
> T1 50 unlock(F) -> wakes T3 (rtmutex->owner == NULL, waiter bit is set)
> T2 120 cleanup -> try_to_take_mutex() fails because T3 is the top waiter
> and the lower priority T2 cannot steal the lock.
> -> fixup_pi_state_owner() sees newowner == NULL -> BUG_ON()
>
> The comment states that this is invalid and rt_mutex_real_owner() must
> return a non NULL owner when the trylock failed, but in case of a queued
> and woken up waiter rt_mutex_real_owner() == NULL is a valid transient
> state. The higher priority waiter has simply not yet managed to take over
> the rtmutex.
>
> The BUG_ON() is therefore wrong and this is just another retry condition in
> fixup_pi_state_owner().
>
> Drop the locks, so that T3 can make progress, and then try the fixup again.
>
> Gratian provided a great analysis, traces and a reproducer. The analysis is
> to the point, but it confused the hell out of that tglx dude who had to
> page in all the futex horrors again. Condensed version is above.
>
> [ tglx: Wrote comment and changelog ]
>
> Fixes: c1e2f0eaf015 ("futex: Avoid violating the 10th rule of futex")
> Reported-by: Gratian Crisan <gratian.crisan@ni.com>
> Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/87a6w6x7bb.fsf@ni.com
> ---
> kernel/futex.c | 16 ++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/kernel/futex.c
> +++ b/kernel/futex.c
> @@ -2380,10 +2380,22 @@ static int fixup_pi_state_owner(u32 __us
> }
>
> /*
> - * Since we just failed the trylock; there must be an owner.
> + * The trylock just failed, so either there is an owner or
> + * there is a higher priority waiter than this one.
> */
> newowner = rt_mutex_owner(&pi_state->pi_mutex);
> - BUG_ON(!newowner);
> + /*
> + * If the higher priority waiter has not yet taken over the
> + * rtmutex then newowner is NULL. We can't return here with
> + * that state because it's inconsistent vs. the user space
> + * state. So drop the locks and try again. It's a valid
> + * situation and not any different from the other retry
> + * conditions.
> + */
> + if (unlikely(!newowner)) {
> + ret = -EAGAIN;
> + goto handle_err;
> + }
> } else {
> WARN_ON_ONCE(argowner != current);
> if (oldowner == current) {
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-04 16:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-28 23:24 BUG_ON(!newowner) in fixup_pi_state_owner() Gratian Crisan
2020-11-03 23:31 ` Gratian Crisan
2020-11-04 0:56 ` Mike Galbraith
2020-11-04 7:42 ` Mike Galbraith
2020-11-04 10:24 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-11-04 11:17 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-11-04 13:26 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-11-04 13:43 ` Mike Galbraith
2020-11-04 15:12 ` [PATCH] futex: Handle transient "ownerless" rtmutex state correctly Thomas Gleixner
2020-11-04 15:22 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-11-04 16:50 ` Mike Galbraith [this message]
2020-11-05 6:32 ` Gratian Crisan
2020-11-04 10:00 ` BUG_ON(!newowner) in fixup_pi_state_owner() Thomas Gleixner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3fa8a9a3e447b7216610b01a31310ef1f9f7cd69.camel@gmx.de \
--to=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=brandon.streiff@ni.com \
--cc=dvhart@infradead.org \
--cc=gratian.crisan@ni.com \
--cc=james.minor@ni.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).