linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, will@kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Question on task_blocks_on_rt_mutex()
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 15:49:11 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200831224911.GA13114@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> (raw)

Hello!

The task_blocks_on_rt_mutex() function uses rt_mutex_owner() to
take a snapshot of the lock owner right up front.  At this point,
the ->wait_lock is held, which at first glance prevents the owner
from leaving.  Except that if there are not yet any waiters (that is,
the low-order bit of ->owner is zero), rt_mutex_fastunlock() might
locklessly clear the ->owner field.  And in that case, it looks like
task_blocks_on_rt_mutex() will blithely continue using the ex-owner's
task_struct structure, without anything that I can see that prevents
the ex-owner from exiting.

What am I missing here?

The reason that I am looking into this is that locktorture scenario LOCK05
hangs, and does so leaving the torture_rtmutex.waiters field equal to 0x1.
This is of course a legal transitional state, but I would not expect it
to persist for more than three minutes.  Yet it often does.

This leads me to believe that there is a way for an unlock to fail to wake
up a task concurrently acquiring the lock.  This seems to be repaired
by later lock acquisitions, and in fact setting the locktorture.stutter
module parameter to zero avoids the hang.  Except that I first found the
above apparently unprotected access to what was recently the owner task.

Thoughts?

							Thanx, Paul

             reply	other threads:[~2020-08-31 22:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-08-31 22:49 Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2020-08-31 23:21 ` Question on task_blocks_on_rt_mutex() Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-01 17:49   ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-01 23:58     ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-02  1:51       ` Davidlohr Bueso
2020-09-02 15:54         ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-03 20:06           ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-04 17:24             ` Davidlohr Bueso
2020-09-04 19:56               ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-05 21:24             ` Joel Fernandes
2020-09-05 21:45               ` Joel Fernandes
2020-09-06  4:14                 ` Paul E. McKenney

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=20200831224911.GA13114@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72 \
    --to=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /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).