-
Thomas Gleixner authored
commit 56222b21 ("futex: Drop hb->lock before enqueueing on the rtmutex") changed the locking rules in the futex code so that the hash bucket lock is not longer held while the waiter is enqueued into the rtmutex wait list. This made the lock and the unlock path symmetric, but unfortunately the possible early exit from __rt_mutex_proxy_start() due to a detected deadlock was not updated accordingly. That allows a concurrent unlocker to observe inconsitent state which triggers the warning in the unlock path. futex_lock_pi() futex_unlock_pi() lock(hb->lock) queue(hb_waiter) lock(hb->lock) lock(rtmutex->wait_lock) unlock(hb->lock) // acquired hb->lock hb_waiter = futex_top_waiter() lock(rtmutex->wait_lock) __rt_mutex_proxy_start() ---> fail remove(rtmutex_waiter); ---> returns -EDEADLOCK unlock(rtmutex->wait_lock) // acquired wait_lock wake_futex_pi() rt_mutex_next_owner() --> returns NULL --> WARN lock(hb->lock) unqueue(hb_waiter) The problem is caused by the remove(rtmutex_waiter) in the failure case of __rt_mutex_proxy_start() as this lets the unlocker observe a waiter in the hash bucket but no waiter on the rtmutex, i.e. inconsistent state. The original commit handles this correctly for the other early return cases (timeout, signal) by delaying the removal of the rtmutex waiter until the returning task reacquired the hash bucket lock. Treat the failure case of __rt_mutex_proxy_start() in the same way and let the existing cleanup code handle the eventual handover of the rtmutex gracefully. The regular rt_mutex_proxy_start() gains the rtmutex waiter removal for the failure case, so that the other callsites are still operating correctly. Add proper comments to the code so all these details are fully documented. Thanks to Peter for helping with the analysis and writing the really valuable code comments. Fixes: 56222b21 ("futex: Drop hb->lock before enqueueing on the rtmutex") Reported-by:
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> Co-developed-by:
1a1fb985