user/sven/linux.git/kernel/locking, branch v6.1.112

rtmutex: Drop rt_mutex::wait_lock before scheduling

2024-09-12T09:10:17Z

commit d33d26036a0274b472299d7dcdaa5fb34329f91b upstream. rt_mutex_handle_deadlock() is called with rt_mutex::wait_lock held. In the good case it returns with the lock held and in the deadlock case it emits a warning and goes into an endless scheduling loop with the lock held, which triggers the 'scheduling in atomic' warning. Unlock rt_mutex::wait_lock in the dead lock case before issuing the warning and dropping into the schedule for ever loop. [ tglx: Moved unlock before the WARN(), removed the pointless comment, massaged changelog, added Fixes tag ] Fixes: 3d5c9340d194 ("rtmutex: Handle deadlock detection smarter") Signed-off-by: Roland Xu Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/ME0P300MB063599BEF0743B8FA339C2CECC802@ME0P300MB0635.AUSP300.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

locking/rwsem: Add __always_inline annotation to __down_write_common() and inlined callers

2024-08-03T06:49:08Z

[ Upstream commit e81859fe64ad42dccefe134d1696e0635f78d763 ] Apparently despite it being marked inline, the compiler may not inline __down_write_common() which makes it difficult to identify the cause of lock contention, as the wchan of the blocked function will always be listed as __down_write_common(). So add __always_inline annotation to the common function (as well as the inlined helper callers) to force it to be inlined so a more useful blocking function will be listed (via wchan). This mirrors commit 92cc5d00a431 ("locking/rwsem: Add __always_inline annotation to __down_read_common() and inlined callers") which did the same for __down_read_common. I sort of worry that I'm playing wack-a-mole here, and talking with compiler people, they tell me inline means nothing, which makes me want to cry a little. So I'm wondering if we need to replace all the inlines with __always_inline, or remove them because either we mean something by it, or not. Fixes: c995e638ccbb ("locking/rwsem: Fold __down_{read,write}*()") Reported-by: Tim Murray Signed-off-by: John Stultz Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Acked-by: Waiman Long Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240709060831.495366-1-jstultz@google.com Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

locking/mutex: Introduce devm_mutex_init()

2024-07-11T10:47:04Z

[ Upstream commit 4cd47222e435dec8e3787614924174f53fcfb5ae ] Using of devm API leads to a certain order of releasing resources. So all dependent resources which are not devm-wrapped should be deleted with respect to devm-release order. Mutex is one of such objects that often is bound to other resources and has no own devm wrapping. Since mutex_destroy() actually does nothing in non-debug builds frequently calling mutex_destroy() is just ignored which is safe for now but wrong formally and can lead to a problem if mutex_destroy() will be extended so introduce devm_mutex_init(). Suggested-by: Christophe Leroy Signed-off-by: George Stark Reviewed-by: Christophe Leroy Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko Reviewed-by: Marek Behún Acked-by: Waiman Long Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240411161032.609544-2-gnstark@salutedevices.com Signed-off-by: Lee Jones Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

lockdep: Fix block chain corruption

2023-12-03T06:32:09Z

[ Upstream commit bca4104b00fec60be330cd32818dd5c70db3d469 ] Kent reported an occasional KASAN splat in lockdep. Mark then noted: > I suspect the dodgy access is to chain_block_buckets[-1], which hits the last 4 > bytes of the redzone and gets (incorrectly/misleadingly) attributed to > nr_large_chain_blocks. That would mean @size == 0, at which point size_to_bucket() returns -1 and the above happens. alloc_chain_hlocks() has 'size - req', for the first with the precondition 'size >= rq', which allows the 0. This code is trying to split a block, del_chain_block() takes what we need, and add_chain_block() puts back the remainder, except in the above case the remainder is 0 sized and things go sideways. Fixes: 810507fe6fd5 ("locking/lockdep: Reuse freed chain_hlocks entries") Reported-by: Kent Overstreet Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Tested-by: Kent Overstreet Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20231121114126.GH8262@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

locking/ww_mutex/test: Fix potential workqueue corruption

2023-11-28T17:06:54Z

[ Upstream commit bccdd808902f8c677317cec47c306e42b93b849e ] In some cases running with the test-ww_mutex code, I was seeing odd behavior where sometimes it seemed flush_workqueue was returning before all the work threads were finished. Often this would cause strange crashes as the mutexes would be freed while they were being used. Looking at the code, there is a lifetime problem as the controlling thread that spawns the work allocates the "struct stress" structures that are passed to the workqueue threads. Then when the workqueue threads are finished, they free the stress struct that was passed to them. Unfortunately the workqueue work_struct node is in the stress struct. Which means the work_struct is freed before the work thread returns and while flush_workqueue is waiting. It seems like a better idea to have the controlling thread both allocate and free the stress structures, so that we can be sure we don't corrupt the workqueue by freeing the structure prematurely. So this patch reworks the test to do so, and with this change I no longer see the early flush_workqueue returns. Signed-off-by: John Stultz Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230922043616.19282-3-jstultz@google.com Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

lockdep: fix static memory detection even more

2023-09-02T07:16:19Z

commit 0a6b58c5cd0dfd7961e725212f0fc8dfc5d96195 upstream. On the parisc architecture, lockdep reports for all static objects which are in the __initdata section (e.g. "setup_done" in devtmpfs, "kthreadd_done" in init/main.c) this warning: INFO: trying to register non-static key. The warning itself is wrong, because those objects are in the __initdata section, but the section itself is on parisc outside of range from _stext to _end, which is why the static_obj() functions returns a wrong answer. While fixing this issue, I noticed that the whole existing check can be simplified a lot. Instead of checking against the _stext and _end symbols (which include code areas too) just check for the .data and .bss segments (since we check a data object). This can be done with the existing is_kernel_core_data() macro. In addition objects in the __initdata section can be checked with init_section_contains(), and is_kernel_rodata() allows keys to be in the _ro_after_init section. This partly reverts and simplifies commit bac59d18c701 ("x86/setup: Fix static memory detection"). Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/ZNqrLRaOi/3wPAdp@p100 Fixes: bac59d18c701 ("x86/setup: Fix static memory detection") Signed-off-by: Helge Deller Cc: Borislav Petkov Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: Guenter Roeck Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

locking/rtmutex: Fix task->pi_waiters integrity

2023-08-03T08:24:14Z

[ Upstream commit f7853c34241807bb97673a5e97719123be39a09e ] Henry reported that rt_mutex_adjust_prio_check() has an ordering problem and puts the lie to the comment in [7]. Sharing the sort key between lock->waiters and owner->pi_waiters *does* create problems, since unlike what the comment claims, holding [L] is insufficient. Notably, consider: A / \ M1 M2 | | B C That is, task A owns both M1 and M2, B and C block on them. In this case a concurrent chain walk (B & C) will modify their resp. sort keys in [7] while holding M1->wait_lock and M2->wait_lock. So holding [L] is meaningless, they're different Ls. This then gives rise to a race condition between [7] and [11], where the requeue of pi_waiters will observe an inconsistent tree order. B C (holds M1->wait_lock, (holds M2->wait_lock, holds B->pi_lock) holds A->pi_lock) [7] waiter_update_prio(); ... [8] raw_spin_unlock(B->pi_lock); ... [10] raw_spin_lock(A->pi_lock); [11] rt_mutex_enqueue_pi(); // observes inconsistent A->pi_waiters // tree order Fixing this means either extending the range of the owner lock from [10-13] to [6-13], with the immediate problem that this means [6-8] hold both blocked and owner locks, or duplicating the sort key. Since the locking in chain walk is horrible enough without having to consider pi_lock nesting rules, duplicate the sort key instead. By giving each tree their own sort key, the above race becomes harmless, if C sees B at the old location, then B will correct things (if they need correcting) when it walks up the chain and reaches A. Fixes: fb00aca47440 ("rtmutex: Turn the plist into an rb-tree") Reported-by: Henry Wu Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner Tested-by: Henry Wu Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230707161052.GF2883469%40hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

locking/rwsem: Add __always_inline annotation to __down_read_common() and inlined callers

2023-05-17T09:53:57Z

commit 92cc5d00a431e96e5a49c0b97e5ad4fa7536bd4b upstream. Apparently despite it being marked inline, the compiler may not inline __down_read_common() which makes it difficult to identify the cause of lock contention, as the blocked function in traceevents will always be listed as __down_read_common(). So this patch adds __always_inline annotation to the common function (as well as the inlined helper callers) to force it to be inlined so the blocking function will be listed (via Wchan) in traceevents. Fixes: c995e638ccbb ("locking/rwsem: Fold __down_{read,write}*()") Reported-by: Tim Murray Signed-off-by: John Stultz Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Reviewed-by: Waiman Long Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230503023351.2832796-1-jstultz@google.com Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

locking/rwsem: Prevent non-first waiter from spinning in down_write() slowpath

2023-03-10T08:34:06Z

commit b613c7f31476c44316bfac1af7cac714b7d6bef9 upstream. A non-first waiter can potentially spin in the for loop of rwsem_down_write_slowpath() without sleeping but fail to acquire the lock even if the rwsem is free if the following sequence happens: Non-first RT waiter First waiter Lock holder ------------------- ------------ ----------- Acquire wait_lock rwsem_try_write_lock(): Set handoff bit if RT or wait too long Set waiter->handoff_set Release wait_lock Acquire wait_lock Inherit waiter->handoff_set Release wait_lock Clear owner Release lock if (waiter.handoff_set) { rwsem_spin_on_owner((); if (OWNER_NULL) goto trylock_again; } trylock_again: Acquire wait_lock rwsem_try_write_lock(): if (first->handoff_set && (waiter != first)) return false; Release wait_lock A non-first waiter cannot really acquire the rwsem even if it mistakenly believes that it can spin on OWNER_NULL value. If that waiter happens to be an RT task running on the same CPU as the first waiter, it can block the first waiter from acquiring the rwsem leading to live lock. Fix this problem by making sure that a non-first waiter cannot spin in the slowpath loop without sleeping. Fixes: d257cc8cb8d5 ("locking/rwsem: Make handoff bit handling more consistent") Signed-off-by: Waiman Long Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar Tested-by: Mukesh Ojha Reviewed-by: Mukesh Ojha Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230126003628.365092-2-longman@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

cpuidle: lib/bug: Disable rcu_is_watching() during WARN/BUG

2023-03-10T08:33:47Z

[ Upstream commit 5a5d7e9badd2cb8065db171961bd30bd3595e4b6 ] In order to avoid WARN/BUG from generating nested or even recursive warnings, force rcu_is_watching() true during WARN/lockdep_rcu_suspicious(). Notably things like unwinding the stack can trigger rcu_dereference() warnings, which then triggers more unwinding which then triggers more warnings etc.. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230126151323.408156109@infradead.org Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin