From 921c7ebd1337d1a46783d7e15a850e12aed2eaa0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Mateusz Nosek Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 02:08:58 +0200 Subject: futex: Fix incorrect should_fail_futex() handling If should_futex_fail() returns true in futex_wake_pi(), then the 'ret' variable is set to -EFAULT and then immediately overwritten. So the failure injection is non-functional. Fix it by actually leaving the function and returning -EFAULT. The Fixes tag is kinda blury because the initial commit which introduced failure injection was already sloppy, but the below mentioned commit broke it completely. [ tglx: Massaged changelog ] Fixes: 6b4f4bc9cb22 ("locking/futex: Allow low-level atomic operations to return -EAGAIN") Signed-off-by: Mateusz Nosek Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200927000858.24219-1-mateusznosek0@gmail.com --- kernel/futex.c | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'kernel/futex.c') diff --git a/kernel/futex.c b/kernel/futex.c index a5876694a60e..39681bf8b06c 100644 --- a/kernel/futex.c +++ b/kernel/futex.c @@ -1502,8 +1502,10 @@ static int wake_futex_pi(u32 __user *uaddr, u32 uval, struct futex_pi_state *pi_ */ newval = FUTEX_WAITERS | task_pid_vnr(new_owner); - if (unlikely(should_fail_futex(true))) + if (unlikely(should_fail_futex(true))) { ret = -EFAULT; + goto out_unlock; + } ret = cmpxchg_futex_value_locked(&curval, uaddr, uval, newval); if (!ret && (curval != uval)) { -- cgit From 9f5d1c336a10c0d24e83e40b4c1b9539f7dba627 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Mike Galbraith Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2020 16:12:44 +0100 Subject: futex: Handle transient "ownerless" rtmutex state correctly 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 T1 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 Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/87a6w6x7bb.fsf@ni.com Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/87sg9pkvf7.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de --- kernel/futex.c | 16 ++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) (limited to 'kernel/futex.c') diff --git a/kernel/futex.c b/kernel/futex.c index f8614ef4ff31..ac328874f6e5 100644 --- a/kernel/futex.c +++ b/kernel/futex.c @@ -2380,10 +2380,22 @@ retry: } /* - * 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)) { + err = -EAGAIN; + goto handle_err; + } } else { WARN_ON_ONCE(argowner != current); if (oldowner == current) { -- cgit From 1e106aa3509b86738769775969822ffc1ec21bf4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Dan Carpenter Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2020 11:52:05 +0300 Subject: futex: Don't enable IRQs unconditionally in put_pi_state() The exit_pi_state_list() function calls put_pi_state() with IRQs disabled and is not expecting that IRQs will be enabled inside the function. Use the _irqsave() variant so that IRQs are restored to the original state instead of being enabled unconditionally. Fixes: 153fbd1226fb ("futex: Fix more put_pi_state() vs. exit_pi_state_list() races") Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201106085205.GA1159983@mwanda --- kernel/futex.c | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) (limited to 'kernel/futex.c') diff --git a/kernel/futex.c b/kernel/futex.c index ac328874f6e5..00259c7e288e 100644 --- a/kernel/futex.c +++ b/kernel/futex.c @@ -788,8 +788,9 @@ static void put_pi_state(struct futex_pi_state *pi_state) */ if (pi_state->owner) { struct task_struct *owner; + unsigned long flags; - raw_spin_lock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock); + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock, flags); owner = pi_state->owner; if (owner) { raw_spin_lock(&owner->pi_lock); @@ -797,7 +798,7 @@ static void put_pi_state(struct futex_pi_state *pi_state) raw_spin_unlock(&owner->pi_lock); } rt_mutex_proxy_unlock(&pi_state->pi_mutex, owner); - raw_spin_unlock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock); + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock, flags); } if (current->pi_state_cache) { -- cgit