user/sven/linux.git/kernel/locking, branch v4.9.186

locking/rwsem: Prevent decrement of reader count before increment

2019-05-21T16:48:55Z

[ Upstream commit a9e9bcb45b1525ba7aea26ed9441e8632aeeda58 ] During my rwsem testing, it was found that after a down_read(), the reader count may occasionally become 0 or even negative. Consequently, a writer may steal the lock at that time and execute with the reader in parallel thus breaking the mutual exclusion guarantee of the write lock. In other words, both readers and writer can become rwsem owners simultaneously. The current reader wakeup code does it in one pass to clear waiter->task and put them into wake_q before fully incrementing the reader count. Once waiter->task is cleared, the corresponding reader may see it, finish the critical section and do unlock to decrement the count before the count is incremented. This is not a problem if there is only one reader to wake up as the count has been pre-incremented by 1. It is a problem if there are more than one readers to be woken up and writer can steal the lock. The wakeup was actually done in 2 passes before the following v4.9 commit: 70800c3c0cc5 ("locking/rwsem: Scan the wait_list for readers only once") To fix this problem, the wakeup is now done in two passes again. In the first pass, we collect the readers and count them. The reader count is then fully incremented. In the second pass, the waiter->task is then cleared and they are put into wake_q to be woken up later. Signed-off-by: Waiman Long Acked-by: Linus Torvalds Cc: Borislav Petkov Cc: Davidlohr Bueso Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Tim Chen Cc: Will Deacon Cc: huang ying Fixes: 70800c3c0cc5 ("locking/rwsem: Scan the wait_list for readers only once") Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190428212557.13482-2-longman@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

Revert "locking/lockdep: Add debug_locks check in __lock_downgrade()"

2019-04-27T07:34:47Z

This reverts commit 670d934a1ea178d7543e6f50b515c76cebeb2fcf which was commit 71492580571467fb7177aade19c18ce7486267f5 upstream. Tetsuo rightly points out that the backport here is incorrect, as it touches the __lock_set_class function instead of the intended __lock_downgrade function. Reported-by: Tetsuo Handa Cc: Waiman Long Cc: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Cc: Andrew Morton Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Paul E. McKenney Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Will Deacon Cc: Ingo Molnar Cc: Sasha Levin Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

locking/lockdep: Add debug_locks check in __lock_downgrade()

2019-03-27T05:13:03Z

commit 71492580571467fb7177aade19c18ce7486267f5 upstream. Tetsuo Handa had reported he saw an incorrect "downgrading a read lock" warning right after a previous lockdep warning. It is likely that the previous warning turned off lock debugging causing the lockdep to have inconsistency states leading to the lock downgrade warning. Fix that by add a check for debug_locks at the beginning of __lock_downgrade(). Debugged-by: Tetsuo Handa Reported-by: Tetsuo Handa Reported-by: syzbot+53383ae265fb161ef488@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Signed-off-by: Waiman Long Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Cc: Andrew Morton Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Paul E. McKenney Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Will Deacon Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1547093005-26085-1-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

futex,rt_mutex: Restructure rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock()

2019-03-13T21:05:01Z

commit 38d589f2fd08f1296aea3ce62bebd185125c6d81 upstream. With the ultimate goal of keeping rt_mutex wait_list and futex_q waiters consistent it's necessary to split 'rt_mutex_futex_lock()' into finer parts, such that only the actual blocking can be done without hb->lock held. Split split_mutex_finish_proxy_lock() into two parts, one that does the blocking and one that does remove_waiter() when the lock acquire failed. When the rtmutex was acquired successfully the waiter can be removed in the acquisiton path safely, since there is no concurrency on the lock owner. This means that, except for futex_lock_pi(), all wait_list modifications are done with both hb->lock and wait_lock held. [bigeasy@linutronix.de: fix for futex_requeue_pi_signal_restart] 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/20170322104152.001659630@infradead.org Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Signed-off-by: Zubin Mithra Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

locking/rwsem: Fix (possible) missed wakeup

2019-03-05T16:57:05Z

[ Upstream commit e158488be27b157802753a59b336142dc0eb0380 ] Because wake_q_add() can imply an immediate wakeup (cmpxchg failure case), we must not rely on the wakeup being delayed. However, commit: e38513905eea ("locking/rwsem: Rework zeroing reader waiter->task") relies on exactly that behaviour in that the wakeup must not happen until after we clear waiter->task. [ peterz: Added changelog. ] Signed-off-by: Xie Yongji Signed-off-by: Zhang Yu Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Thomas Gleixner Fixes: e38513905eea ("locking/rwsem: Rework zeroing reader waiter->task") Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1543495830-2644-1-git-send-email-xieyongji@baidu.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

locking/qspinlock, x86: Provide liveness guarantee

2018-12-21T13:11:34Z

commit 7aa54be2976550f17c11a1c3e3630002dea39303 upstream. On x86 we cannot do fetch_or() with a single instruction and thus end up using a cmpxchg loop, this reduces determinism. Replace the fetch_or() with a composite operation: tas-pending + load. Using two instructions of course opens a window we previously did not have. Consider the scenario: CPU0 CPU1 CPU2 1) lock trylock -> (0,0,1) 2) lock trylock /* fail */ 3) unlock -> (0,0,0) 4) lock trylock -> (0,0,1) 5) tas-pending -> (0,1,1) load-val <- (0,1,0) from 3 6) clear-pending-set-locked -> (0,0,1) FAIL: _2_ owners where 5) is our new composite operation. When we consider each part of the qspinlock state as a separate variable (as we can when _Q_PENDING_BITS == 8) then the above is entirely possible, because tas-pending will only RmW the pending byte, so the later load is able to observe prior tail and lock state (but not earlier than its own trylock, which operates on the whole word, due to coherence). To avoid this we need 2 things: - the load must come after the tas-pending (obviously, otherwise it can trivially observe prior state). - the tas-pending must be a full word RmW instruction, it cannot be an XCHGB for example, such that we cannot observe other state prior to setting pending. On x86 we can realize this by using "LOCK BTS m32, r32" for tas-pending followed by a regular load. Note that observing later state is not a problem: - if we fail to observe a later unlock, we'll simply spin-wait for that store to become visible. - if we observe a later xchg_tail(), there is no difference from that xchg_tail() having taken place before the tas-pending. Suggested-by: Will Deacon Reported-by: Thomas Gleixner Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Reviewed-by: Will Deacon Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com Cc: longman@redhat.com Fixes: 59fb586b4a07 ("locking/qspinlock: Remove unbounded cmpxchg() loop from locking slowpath") Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181003130957.183726335@infradead.org Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar [bigeasy: GEN_BINARY_RMWcc macro redo] Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

locking/qspinlock: Re-order code

2018-12-21T13:11:34Z

commit 53bf57fab7321fb42b703056a4c80fc9d986d170 upstream. Flip the branch condition after atomic_fetch_or_acquire(_Q_PENDING_VAL) such that we loose the indent. This also result in a more natural code flow IMO. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Acked-by: Will Deacon Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com Cc: longman@redhat.com Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181003130257.156322446@infradead.org Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

locking/qspinlock: Kill cmpxchg() loop when claiming lock from head of queue

2018-12-21T13:11:34Z

commit c61da58d8a9ba9238250a548f00826eaf44af0f7 upstream. When a queued locker reaches the head of the queue, it claims the lock by setting _Q_LOCKED_VAL in the lockword. If there isn't contention, it must also clear the tail as part of this operation so that subsequent lockers can avoid taking the slowpath altogether. Currently this is expressed as a cmpxchg() loop that practically only runs up to two iterations. This is confusing to the reader and unhelpful to the compiler. Rewrite the cmpxchg() loop without the loop, so that a failed cmpxchg() implies that there is contention and we just need to write to _Q_LOCKED_VAL without considering the rest of the lockword. Signed-off-by: Will Deacon Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Acked-by: Waiman Long Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: boqun.feng@gmail.com Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1524738868-31318-7-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

locking/qspinlock: Remove duplicate clear_pending() function from PV code

2018-12-21T13:11:34Z

commit 3bea9adc96842b8a7345c7fb202c16ae9c8d5b25 upstream. The native clear_pending() function is identical to the PV version, so the latter can simply be removed. This fixes the build for systems with >= 16K CPUs using the PV lock implementation. Reported-by: Waiman Long Signed-off-by: Will Deacon Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: boqun.feng@gmail.com Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180427101619.GB21705@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

locking/qspinlock: Remove unbounded cmpxchg() loop from locking slowpath

2018-12-21T13:11:33Z

commit 59fb586b4a07b4e1a0ee577140ab4842ba451acd upstream. The qspinlock locking slowpath utilises a "pending" bit as a simple form of an embedded test-and-set lock that can avoid the overhead of explicit queuing in cases where the lock is held but uncontended. This bit is managed using a cmpxchg() loop which tries to transition the uncontended lock word from (0,0,0) -> (0,0,1) or (0,0,1) -> (0,1,1). Unfortunately, the cmpxchg() loop is unbounded and lockers can be starved indefinitely if the lock word is seen to oscillate between unlocked (0,0,0) and locked (0,0,1). This could happen if concurrent lockers are able to take the lock in the cmpxchg() loop without queuing and pass it around amongst themselves. This patch fixes the problem by unconditionally setting _Q_PENDING_VAL using atomic_fetch_or, and then inspecting the old value to see whether we need to spin on the current lock owner, or whether we now effectively hold the lock. The tricky scenario is when concurrent lockers end up queuing on the lock and the lock becomes available, causing us to see a lockword of (n,0,0). With pending now set, simply queuing could lead to deadlock as the head of the queue may not have observed the pending flag being cleared. Conversely, if the head of the queue did observe pending being cleared, then it could transition the lock from (n,0,0) -> (0,0,1) meaning that any attempt to "undo" our setting of the pending bit could race with a concurrent locker trying to set it. We handle this race by preserving the pending bit when taking the lock after reaching the head of the queue and leaving the tail entry intact if we saw pending set, because we know that the tail is going to be updated shortly. Signed-off-by: Will Deacon Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Acked-by: Waiman Long Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: boqun.feng@gmail.com Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1524738868-31318-6-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin