Needed for annotating rt_mutex locks. Tested-by: John Sperbeck <jsperbeck@google.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> Cc: Deepa Dinamani <deepadinamani@google.com> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Peter Chang <dpf@google.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180720083914.1950-2-peda@axentia.se Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
In -RT task_blocks_on_rt_mutex() may return with -EAGAIN due to (->pi_blocked_on == PI_WAKEUP_INPROGRESS) before it added itself as a waiter. In such a case remove_waiter() must not be called because without a waiter it will trigger the BUG_ON() statement. This was initially reported by Yimin Deng. Thomas Gleixner fixed it then with an explicit check for waiters before calling remove_waiter(). Instead of an explicit NULL check before calling rt_mutex_top_waiter() make the function return NULL if there are no waiters. With that fixed the now pointless NULL check is removed from rt_mutex_slowlock(). Reported-and-debugged-by: Yimin Deng <yimin11.deng@gmail.com> Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAAh1qt=DCL9aUXNxanP5BKtiPp3m+qj4yB+gDohhXPVFCxWwzg@mail.gmail.com Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180327121438.sss7hxg3crqy4ecd@linutronix.de
When running rcutorture with TREE03 config, CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y, and
kernel cmdline argument "rcutorture.gp_exp=1", lockdep reports a
HARDIRQ-safe->HARDIRQ-unsafe deadlock:
================================
WARNING: inconsistent lock state
4.16.0-rc4+ #1 Not tainted
--------------------------------
inconsistent {IN-HARDIRQ-W} -> {HARDIRQ-ON-W} usage.
takes:
__schedule+0xbe/0xaf0
{IN-HARDIRQ-W} state was registered at:
_raw_spin_lock+0x2a/0x40
scheduler_tick+0x47/0xf0
...
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0
----
lock(&rq->lock);
<Interrupt>
lock(&rq->lock);
*** DEADLOCK ***
1 lock held by rcu_torture_rea/724:
rcu_torture_read_lock+0x0/0x70
stack backtrace:
CPU: 2 PID: 724 Comm: rcu_torture_rea Not tainted 4.16.0-rc4+ #1
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.11.0-20171110_100015-anatol 04/01/2014
Call Trace:
lock_acquire+0x90/0x200
? __schedule+0xbe/0xaf0
_raw_spin_lock+0x2a/0x40
? __schedule+0xbe/0xaf0
__schedule+0xbe/0xaf0
preempt_schedule_irq+0x2f/0x60
retint_kernel+0x1b/0x2d
RIP: 0010:rcu_read_unlock_special+0x0/0x680
? rcu_torture_read_unlock+0x60/0x60
__rcu_read_unlock+0x64/0x70
rcu_torture_read_unlock+0x17/0x60
rcu_torture_reader+0x275/0x450
? rcutorture_booster_init+0x110/0x110
? rcu_torture_stall+0x230/0x230
? kthread+0x10e/0x130
kthread+0x10e/0x130
? kthread_create_worker_on_cpu+0x70/0x70
? call_usermodehelper_exec_async+0x11a/0x150
ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50
This happens with the following even sequence:
preempt_schedule_irq();
local_irq_enable();
__schedule():
local_irq_disable(); // irq off
...
rcu_note_context_switch():
rcu_note_preempt_context_switch():
rcu_read_unlock_special():
local_irq_save(flags);
...
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(...,flags); // irq remains off
rt_mutex_futex_unlock():
raw_spin_lock_irq();
...
raw_spin_unlock_irq(); // accidentally set irq on
<return to __schedule()>
rq_lock():
raw_spin_lock(); // acquiring rq->lock with irq on
which means rq->lock becomes a HARDIRQ-unsafe lock, which can cause
deadlocks in scheduler code.
This problem was introduced by commit 02a7c234e540 ("rcu: Suppress
lockdep false-positive ->boost_mtx complaints"). That brought the user
of rt_mutex_futex_unlock() with irq off.
To fix this, replace the *lock_irq() in rt_mutex_futex_unlock() with
*lock_irq{save,restore}() to make it safe to call rt_mutex_futex_unlock()
with irq off.
Fixes: 02a7c234e540 ("rcu: Suppress lockdep false-positive ->boost_mtx complaints")
Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc: "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180309065630.8283-1-boqun.feng@gmail.com
Julia reported futex state corruption in the following scenario:
waiter waker stealer (prio > waiter)
futex(WAIT_REQUEUE_PI, uaddr, uaddr2,
timeout=[N ms])
futex_wait_requeue_pi()
futex_wait_queue_me()
freezable_schedule()
<scheduled out>
futex(LOCK_PI, uaddr2)
futex(CMP_REQUEUE_PI, uaddr,
uaddr2, 1, 0)
/* requeues waiter to uaddr2 */
futex(UNLOCK_PI, uaddr2)
wake_futex_pi()
cmp_futex_value_locked(uaddr2, waiter)
wake_up_q()
<woken by waker>
<hrtimer_wakeup() fires,
clears sleeper->task>
futex(LOCK_PI, uaddr2)
__rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock()
try_to_take_rt_mutex() /* steals lock */
rt_mutex_set_owner(lock, stealer)
<preempted>
<scheduled in>
rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock()
__rt_mutex_slowlock()
try_to_take_rt_mutex() /* fails, lock held by stealer */
if (timeout && !timeout->task)
return -ETIMEDOUT;
fixup_owner()
/* lock wasn't acquired, so,
fixup_pi_state_owner skipped */
return -ETIMEDOUT;
/* At this point, we've returned -ETIMEDOUT to userspace, but the
* futex word shows waiter to be the owner, and the pi_mutex has
* stealer as the owner */
futex_lock(LOCK_PI, uaddr2)
-> bails with EDEADLK, futex word says we're owner.
And suggested that what commit:
73d786bd043e ("futex: Rework inconsistent rt_mutex/futex_q state")
removes from fixup_owner() looks to be just what is needed. And indeed
it is -- I completely missed that requeue_pi could also result in this
case. So we need to restore that, except that subsequent patches, like
commit:
16ffa12d7425 ("futex: Pull rt_mutex_futex_unlock() out from under hb->lock")
changed all the locking rules. Even without that, the sequence:
- if (rt_mutex_futex_trylock(&q->pi_state->pi_mutex)) {
- locked = 1;
- goto out;
- }
- raw_spin_lock_irq(&q->pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
- owner = rt_mutex_owner(&q->pi_state->pi_mutex);
- if (!owner)
- owner = rt_mutex_next_owner(&q->pi_state->pi_mutex);
- raw_spin_unlock_irq(&q->pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
- ret = fixup_pi_state_owner(uaddr, q, owner);
already suggests there were races; otherwise we'd never have to look
at next_owner.
So instead of doing 3 consecutive wait_lock sections with who knows
what races, we do it all in a single section. Additionally, the usage
of pi_state->owner in fixup_owner() was only safe because only the
rt_mutex owner would modify it, which this additional case wrecks.
Luckily the values can only change away and not to the value we're
testing, this means we can do a speculative test and double check once
we have the wait_lock.
Fixes: 73d786bd043e ("futex: Rework inconsistent rt_mutex/futex_q state")
Reported-by: Julia Cartwright <julia@ni.com>
Reported-by: Gratian Crisan <gratian.crisan@ni.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Tested-by: Julia Cartwright <julia@ni.com>
Tested-by: Gratian Crisan <gratian.crisan@ni.com>
Cc: Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20171208124939.7livp7no2ov65rrc@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
... with the generic rbtree flavor instead. No changes in semantics whatsoever. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170719014603.19029-10-dave@stgolabs.net Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
We don't need to adjust priority before adding a new pi_waiter, the priority only needs to be updated after pi_waiter change or task priority change. Steven Rostedt pointed out: "Interesting, I did some git mining and this was added with the original entry of the rtmutex.c (23f78d4a03c5). Looking at even that version, I don't see the purpose of adjusting the task prio here. It is done before anything changes in the task." Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org> Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@goodmis.org> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org> Cc: Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1499926704-28841-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@linaro.org [ Enhance the changelog. ] Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
pi_mutex isn't supposed to be tracked by lockdep, but just
passing NULLs for name and key will cause lockdep to spew a
warning and die, which is not what we want it to do.
Skip lockdep initialization if the caller passed NULLs for
name and key, suggesting such initialization isn't desired.
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@verizon.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Fixes: f5694788ad8d ("rt_mutex: Add lockdep annotations")
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170618140548.4763-1-alexander.levin@verizon.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Now that (PI) futexes have their own private RT-mutex interface and implementation we can easily add lockdep annotations to the existing RT-mutex interface. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
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.kicks-ass.net
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
mark_wakeup_next_waiter() already disables preemption, doing so again
leaves us with an unpaired preempt_disable().
Fixes: 2a1c60299406 ("rtmutex: Deboost before waking up the top waiter")
Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: xlpang@redhat.com
Cc: rostedt@goodmis.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1491379707.6538.2.camel@gmx.de
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>