linux-stable.git, branch v4.4.280

Linux 4.4.280

2021-08-10T15:39:42+00:00

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210808072217.322468704@linuxfoundation.org
Tested-by: Guenter Roeck 
Tested-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing 
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

rcu: Update documentation of rcu_read_unlock()

2021-08-10T15:39:42+00:00

[ Upstream commit ec84b27f9b3b569f9235413d1945a2006b97b0aa ]

Since commit b4abf91047cf ("rtmutex: Make wait_lock irq safe") the
explanation in rcu_read_unlock() documentation about irq unsafe rtmutex
wait_lock is no longer valid.

Remove it to prevent kernel developers reading the documentation to rely on
it.

Suggested-by: Eric W. Biederman 
Signed-off-by: Anna-Maria Gleixner 
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner 
Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney 
Acked-by: "Eric W. Biederman" 
Cc: bigeasy@linutronix.de
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180525090507.22248-2-anna-maria@linutronix.de
Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei 
Acked-by: Joe Korty 
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

futex,rt_mutex: Fix rt_mutex_cleanup_proxy_lock()

2021-08-10T15:39:42+00:00

[ Upstream commit 04dc1b2fff4e96cb4142227fbdc63c8871ad4ed9 ]

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 
Bug-Spotted-by: Thomas Gleixner 
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) 
Cc: Florian Weimer 
Cc: Darren Hart 
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 
Cc: Markus Trippelsdorf 
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170519154850.mlomgdsd26drq5j6@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner 
Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei 
Acked-by: Joe Korty 
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

futex: Avoid freeing an active timer

2021-08-10T15:39:42+00:00

[ Upstream commit 97181f9bd57405b879403763284537e27d46963d ]

Alexander reported a hrtimer debug_object splat:

  ODEBUG: free active (active state 0) object type: hrtimer hint: hrtimer_wakeup (kernel/time/hrtimer.c:1423)

  debug_object_free (lib/debugobjects.c:603)
  destroy_hrtimer_on_stack (kernel/time/hrtimer.c:427)
  futex_lock_pi (kernel/futex.c:2740)
  do_futex (kernel/futex.c:3399)
  SyS_futex (kernel/futex.c:3447 kernel/futex.c:3415)
  do_syscall_64 (arch/x86/entry/common.c:284)
  entry_SYSCALL64_slow_path (arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:249)

Which was caused by commit:

  cfafcd117da0 ("futex: Rework futex_lock_pi() to use rt_mutex_*_proxy_lock()")

... losing the hrtimer_cancel() in the shuffle. Where previously the
hrtimer_cancel() was done by rt_mutex_slowlock() we now need to do it
manually.

Reported-by: Alexander Levin 
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner 
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) 
Cc: Linus Torvalds 
Cc: Peter Zijlstra 
Fixes: cfafcd117da0 ("futex: Rework futex_lock_pi() to use rt_mutex_*_proxy_lock()")
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/alpine.DEB.2.20.1704101802370.2906@nanos
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar 
Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei 
Acked-by: Joe Korty 
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

futex: Handle transient "ownerless" rtmutex state correctly

2021-08-10T15:39:42+00:00

[ Upstream commit 9f5d1c336a10c0d24e83e40b4c1b9539f7dba627 ]

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
Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei 
Acked-by: Joe Korty 
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

rtmutex: Make wait_lock irq safe

2021-08-10T15:39:42+00:00

[ Upstream commit b4abf91047cf054f203dcfac97e1038388826937 ]

Sasha reported a lockdep splat about a potential deadlock between RCU boosting
rtmutex and the posix timer it_lock.

CPU0					CPU1

rtmutex_lock(&rcu->rt_mutex)
  spin_lock(&rcu->rt_mutex.wait_lock)
					local_irq_disable()
					spin_lock(&timer->it_lock)
					spin_lock(&rcu->mutex.wait_lock)
--> Interrupt
    spin_lock(&timer->it_lock)

This is caused by the following code sequence on CPU1

     rcu_read_lock()
     x = lookup();
     if (x)
     	spin_lock_irqsave(&x->it_lock);
     rcu_read_unlock();
     return x;

We could fix that in the posix timer code by keeping rcu read locked across
the spinlocked and irq disabled section, but the above sequence is common and
there is no reason not to support it.

Taking rt_mutex.wait_lock irq safe prevents the deadlock.

Reported-by: Sasha Levin 
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner 
Cc: Peter Zijlstra 
Cc: Paul McKenney 
Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei 
Acked-by: Joe Korty 
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

futex: Futex_unlock_pi() determinism

2021-08-10T15:39:42+00:00

[ Upstream commit bebe5b514345f09be2c15e414d076b02ecb9cce8 ]

The problem with returning -EAGAIN when the waiter state mismatches is that
it becomes very hard to proof a bounded execution time on the
operation. And seeing that this is a RT operation, this is somewhat
important.

While in practise; given the previous patch; it will be very unlikely to
ever really take more than one or two rounds, proving so becomes rather
hard.

However, now that modifying wait_list is done while holding both hb->lock
and wait_lock, the scenario can be avoided entirely by acquiring wait_lock
while still holding hb-lock. Doing a hand-over, without leaving a hole.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) 
Cc: juri.lelli@arm.com
Cc: bigeasy@linutronix.de
Cc: xlpang@redhat.com
Cc: rostedt@goodmis.org
Cc: mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com
Cc: jdesfossez@efficios.com
Cc: dvhart@infradead.org
Cc: bristot@redhat.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170322104152.112378812@infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner 
Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei 
Acked-by: Joe Korty 
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

futex: Rework futex_lock_pi() to use rt_mutex_*_proxy_lock()

2021-08-10T15:39:42+00:00

[ Upstream commit cfafcd117da0216520568c195cb2f6cd1980c4bb ]

By changing futex_lock_pi() to use rt_mutex_*_proxy_lock() all wait_list
modifications are done under both hb->lock and wait_lock.

This closes the obvious interleave pattern between futex_lock_pi() and
futex_unlock_pi(), but not entirely so. See below:

Before:

futex_lock_pi()			futex_unlock_pi()
  unlock hb->lock

				  lock hb->lock
				  unlock hb->lock

				  lock rt_mutex->wait_lock
				  unlock rt_mutex_wait_lock
				    -EAGAIN

  lock rt_mutex->wait_lock
  list_add
  unlock rt_mutex->wait_lock

  schedule()

  lock rt_mutex->wait_lock
  list_del
  unlock rt_mutex->wait_lock

				  
				    -EAGAIN

  lock hb->lock

After:

futex_lock_pi()			futex_unlock_pi()

  lock hb->lock
  lock rt_mutex->wait_lock
  list_add
  unlock rt_mutex->wait_lock
  unlock hb->lock

  schedule()
				  lock hb->lock
				  unlock hb->lock
  lock hb->lock
  lock rt_mutex->wait_lock
  list_del
  unlock rt_mutex->wait_lock

				  lock rt_mutex->wait_lock
				  unlock rt_mutex_wait_lock
				    -EAGAIN

  unlock hb->lock

It does however solve the earlier starvation/live-lock scenario which got
introduced with the -EAGAIN since unlike the before scenario; where the
-EAGAIN happens while futex_unlock_pi() doesn't hold any locks; in the
after scenario it happens while futex_unlock_pi() actually holds a lock,
and then it is serialized on that lock.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) 
Cc: juri.lelli@arm.com
Cc: bigeasy@linutronix.de
Cc: xlpang@redhat.com
Cc: rostedt@goodmis.org
Cc: mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com
Cc: jdesfossez@efficios.com
Cc: dvhart@infradead.org
Cc: bristot@redhat.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170322104152.062785528@infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner 
Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei 
Acked-by: Joe Korty 
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

futex: Pull rt_mutex_futex_unlock() out from under hb->lock

2021-08-10T15:39:42+00:00

[ Upstream commit 16ffa12d742534d4ff73e8b3a4e81c1de39196f0 ]

There's a number of 'interesting' problems, all caused by holding
hb->lock while doing the rt_mutex_unlock() equivalient.

Notably:

 - a PI inversion on hb->lock; and,

 - a SCHED_DEADLINE crash because of pointer instability.

The previous changes:

 - changed the locking rules to cover {uval,pi_state} with wait_lock.

 - allow to do rt_mutex_futex_unlock() without dropping wait_lock; which in
   turn allows to rely on wait_lock atomicity completely.

 - simplified the waiter conundrum.

It's now sufficient to hold rtmutex::wait_lock and a reference on the
pi_state to protect the state consistency, so hb->lock can be dropped
before calling rt_mutex_futex_unlock().

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) 
Cc: juri.lelli@arm.com
Cc: bigeasy@linutronix.de
Cc: xlpang@redhat.com
Cc: rostedt@goodmis.org
Cc: mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com
Cc: jdesfossez@efficios.com
Cc: dvhart@infradead.org
Cc: bristot@redhat.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170322104151.900002056@infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner 
Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei 
Acked-by: Joe Korty 
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

futex,rt_mutex: Introduce rt_mutex_init_waiter()

2021-08-10T15:39:42+00:00

[ Upstream commit 50809358dd7199aa7ce232f6877dd09ec30ef374 ]

Since there's already two copies of this code, introduce a helper now
before adding a third one.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) 
Cc: juri.lelli@arm.com
Cc: bigeasy@linutronix.de
Cc: xlpang@redhat.com
Cc: rostedt@goodmis.org
Cc: mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com
Cc: jdesfossez@efficios.com
Cc: dvhart@infradead.org
Cc: bristot@redhat.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170322104151.950039479@infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner 
Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei 
Acked-by: Joe Korty 
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman