From: Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk>
From: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org>
commit c74aef2d06a9f59cece89093eecc552933cba72a upstream.
There was a reported suspicion about a race between exit_pi_state_list()
and put_pi_state(). The same report mentioned the comment with
put_pi_state() said it should be called with hb->lock held, and it no
longer is in all places.
As it turns out, the pi_state->owner serialization is indeed broken. As per
the new rules:
734009e96d19 ("futex: Change locking rules")
pi_state->owner should be serialized by pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock.
For the sites setting pi_state->owner we already hold wait_lock (where
required) but exit_pi_state_list() and put_pi_state() were not and
raced on clearing it.
Fixes: 734009e96d19 ("futex: Change locking rules")
Reported-by: Gratian Crisan <gratian.cri...@ni.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <pet...@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de>
Cc: dvh...@infradead.org
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
Link:
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170922154806.jd3ffltfk24m4...@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
[bwh: Backported to 4.9: adjust context]
Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org>
---
kernel/futex.c | 21 ++++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/futex.c
+++ b/kernel/futex.c
@@ -868,8 +868,6 @@ static void get_pi_state(struct futex_pi
/*
* Drops a reference to the pi_state object and frees or caches it
* when the last reference is gone.
- *
- * Must be called with the hb lock held.
*/
static void put_pi_state(struct futex_pi_state *pi_state)
{
@@ -884,13 +882,15 @@ static void put_pi_state(struct futex_pi
* and has cleaned up the pi_state already
*/
if (pi_state->owner) {
+ raw_spin_lock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
pi_state_update_owner(pi_state, NULL);
rt_mutex_proxy_unlock(&pi_state->pi_mutex);
+ raw_spin_unlock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
}
- if (current->pi_state_cache)
+ if (current->pi_state_cache) {
kfree(pi_state);
- else {
+ } else {
/*
* pi_state->list is already empty.
* clear pi_state->owner.
@@ -949,13 +949,14 @@ static void exit_pi_state_list(struct ta
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&curr->pi_lock);
spin_lock(&hb->lock);
-
- raw_spin_lock_irq(&curr->pi_lock);
+ raw_spin_lock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
+ raw_spin_lock(&curr->pi_lock);
/*
* We dropped the pi-lock, so re-check whether this
* task still owns the PI-state:
*/
if (head->next != next) {
+ raw_spin_unlock(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
spin_unlock(&hb->lock);
continue;
}
@@ -964,9 +965,10 @@ static void exit_pi_state_list(struct ta
WARN_ON(list_empty(&pi_state->list));
list_del_init(&pi_state->list);
pi_state->owner = NULL;
- raw_spin_unlock_irq(&curr->pi_lock);
+ raw_spin_unlock(&curr->pi_lock);
get_pi_state(pi_state);
+ raw_spin_unlock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
spin_unlock(&hb->lock);
rt_mutex_futex_unlock(&pi_state->pi_mutex);
@@ -1349,6 +1351,10 @@ static int attach_to_pi_owner(u32 __user
WARN_ON(!list_empty(&pi_state->list));
list_add(&pi_state->list, &p->pi_state_list);
+ /*
+ * Assignment without holding pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock is safe
+ * because there is no concurrency as the object is not published yet.
+ */
pi_state->owner = p;
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&p->pi_lock);
@@ -3027,6 +3033,7 @@ retry:
raw_spin_lock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
spin_unlock(&hb->lock);
+ /* drops pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock */
ret = wake_futex_pi(uaddr, uval, pi_state);
put_pi_state(pi_state);
