lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Apr]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] futex: avoid race between requeue and wake
From
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> I ran reproducer with following change on s390x system, where this
> can be reproduced usually within seconds:
>
> diff --git a/kernel/futex.c b/kernel/futex.c
> index 67dacaf..9150ffd 100644
> --- a/kernel/futex.c
> +++ b/kernel/futex.c
> @@ -1095,6 +1095,7 @@ static int unlock_futex_pi(u32 __user *uaddr, u32 uval)
> static inline void
> double_lock_hb(struct futex_hash_bucket *hb1, struct futex_hash_bucket *hb2)
> {
> + hb_waiters_inc(hb2);
> if (hb1 <= hb2) {
> spin_lock(&hb1->lock);
> if (hb1 < hb2)
> @@ -1111,6 +1112,7 @@ double_unlock_hb(struct futex_hash_bucket *hb1, struct futex_hash_bucket *hb2)
> spin_unlock(&hb1->lock);
> if (hb1 != hb2)
> spin_unlock(&hb2->lock);
> + hb_waiters_dec(hb2);
> }
>
> /*
>
> Reproducer is running without failures over an hour now and
> made ~1.4 million iterations.

Ok, that's encouraging. That is the smallest patch I could come up
with, but as mentioned, it's not optimal. We only need it for
futex_requeue(), but if we do it there we'd have to handle all the
different error cases (there's only one call to double_lock_hb(), but
due to the error cases there's four calls to double_unlock_hb().

I'm not sure how much we care. The simple patch basically adds two
(unnecessary) atomics to the futex_wake_op() path. I don't know how
critical that path is - not as critical as the regular "futex_wake()",
I'd expect, but I guess pthread_cond_signal() is the main user.

So I'll have to leave this decision to the futex people. But the
attached slightly more complex patch *may* be the better one.

May I bother you to test this one too? I really think that
futex_requeue() is the only user that should need this, so doing it
there rather than in double_[un]lock_hb() should be slightly more
optimal, but who knows what I've missed. We clearly *all* missed this
race back when the ordering rules were documented..

Still hoping for comments from PeterZ and Davidlohr.

Linus
kernel/futex.c | 5 +++++
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)

diff --git a/kernel/futex.c b/kernel/futex.c
index 67dacaf93e56..6801b3751a95 100644
--- a/kernel/futex.c
+++ b/kernel/futex.c
@@ -1452,6 +1452,7 @@ retry:
hb2 = hash_futex(&key2);

retry_private:
+ hb_waiters_inc(hb2);
double_lock_hb(hb1, hb2);

if (likely(cmpval != NULL)) {
@@ -1461,6 +1462,7 @@ retry_private:

if (unlikely(ret)) {
double_unlock_hb(hb1, hb2);
+ hb_waiters_dec(hb2);

ret = get_user(curval, uaddr1);
if (ret)
@@ -1510,6 +1512,7 @@ retry_private:
break;
case -EFAULT:
double_unlock_hb(hb1, hb2);
+ hb_waiters_dec(hb2);
put_futex_key(&key2);
put_futex_key(&key1);
ret = fault_in_user_writeable(uaddr2);
@@ -1519,6 +1522,7 @@ retry_private:
case -EAGAIN:
/* The owner was exiting, try again. */
double_unlock_hb(hb1, hb2);
+ hb_waiters_dec(hb2);
put_futex_key(&key2);
put_futex_key(&key1);
cond_resched();
@@ -1594,6 +1598,7 @@ retry_private:

out_unlock:
double_unlock_hb(hb1, hb2);
+ hb_waiters_dec(hb2);

/*
* drop_futex_key_refs() must be called outside the spinlocks. During
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-04-09 00:41    [W:0.107 / U:3.432 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site