mirror of
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git
synced 2024-12-29 09:16:33 +00:00
fbeb558b0d
Some new assertions pointed out that the existing code has nested rt_mutex wait state in the futex code. Specifically, the futex_lock_pi() cancel case uses spin_lock() while there still is a rt_waiter enqueued for this task, resulting in a state where there are two waiters for the same task (and task_struct::pi_blocked_on gets scrambled). The reason to take hb->lock at this point is to avoid the wake_futex_pi() EAGAIN case. This happens when futex_top_waiter() and rt_mutex_top_waiter() state becomes inconsistent. The current rules are such that this inconsistency will not be observed. Notably the case that needs to be avoided is where futex_lock_pi() and futex_unlock_pi() interleave such that unlock will fail to observe a new waiter. *However* the case at hand is where a waiter is leaving, in this case the race means a waiter that is going away is not observed -- which is harmless, provided this race is explicitly handled. This is a somewhat dangerous proposition because the converse race is not observing a new waiter, which must absolutely not happen. But since the race is valid this cannot be asserted. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Reviewed-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> Tested-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230915151943.GD6743@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| core.c | ||
| futex.h | ||
| Makefile | ||
| pi.c | ||
| requeue.c | ||
| syscalls.c | ||
| waitwake.c | ||