mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "tip-bot2 for Jann Horn" <tip-bot2@linutronix.de>
To: linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [tip: locking/core] locking/mutex: Document that mutex_unlock() is non-atomic
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2023 10:44:09 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <170142744948.398.4203675877225809071.tip-bot2@tip-bot2> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231130204817.2031407-1-jannh@google.com>

The following commit has been merged into the locking/core branch of tip:

Commit-ID:     a51749ab34d9e5dec548fe38ede7e01e8bb26454
Gitweb:        https://git.kernel.org/tip/a51749ab34d9e5dec548fe38ede7e01e8bb26454
Author:        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
AuthorDate:    Thu, 30 Nov 2023 21:48:17 +01:00
Committer:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
CommitterDate: Fri, 01 Dec 2023 11:27:43 +01:00

locking/mutex: Document that mutex_unlock() is non-atomic

I have seen several cases of attempts to use mutex_unlock() to release an
object such that the object can then be freed by another task.

This is not safe because mutex_unlock(), in the
MUTEX_FLAG_WAITERS && !MUTEX_FLAG_HANDOFF case, accesses the mutex
structure after having marked it as unlocked; so mutex_unlock() requires
its caller to ensure that the mutex stays alive until mutex_unlock()
returns.

If MUTEX_FLAG_WAITERS is set and there are real waiters, those waiters
have to keep the mutex alive, but we could have a spurious
MUTEX_FLAG_WAITERS left if an interruptible/killable waiter bailed
between the points where __mutex_unlock_slowpath() did the cmpxchg
reading the flags and where it acquired the wait_lock.

( With spinlocks, that kind of code pattern is allowed and, from what I
  remember, used in several places in the kernel. )

Document this, such a semantic difference between mutexes and spinlocks
is fairly unintuitive.

[ mingo: Made the changelog a bit more assertive, refined the comments. ]

Signed-off-by: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231130204817.2031407-1-jannh@google.com
---
 Documentation/locking/mutex-design.rst | 6 ++++++
 kernel/locking/mutex.c                 | 5 +++++
 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/locking/mutex-design.rst b/Documentation/locking/mutex-design.rst
index 78540cd..7572339 100644
--- a/Documentation/locking/mutex-design.rst
+++ b/Documentation/locking/mutex-design.rst
@@ -101,6 +101,12 @@ features that make lock debugging easier and faster:
     - Detects multi-task circular deadlocks and prints out all affected
       locks and tasks (and only those tasks).
 
+Releasing a mutex is not an atomic operation: Once a mutex release operation
+has begun, another context may be able to acquire the mutex before the release
+operation has fully completed. The mutex user must ensure that the mutex is not
+destroyed while a release operation is still in progress - in other words,
+callers of mutex_unlock() must ensure that the mutex stays alive until
+mutex_unlock() has returned.
 
 Interfaces
 ----------
diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
index 2deeeca..cbae8c0 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
@@ -532,6 +532,11 @@ static noinline void __sched __mutex_unlock_slowpath(struct mutex *lock, unsigne
  * This function must not be used in interrupt context. Unlocking
  * of a not locked mutex is not allowed.
  *
+ * The caller must ensure that the mutex stays alive until this function has
+ * returned - mutex_unlock() can NOT directly be used to release an object such
+ * that another concurrent task can free it.
+ * Mutexes are different from spinlocks & refcounts in this aspect.
+ *
  * This function is similar to (but not equivalent to) up().
  */
 void __sched mutex_unlock(struct mutex *lock)

  parent reply	other threads:[~2023-12-01 10:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-11-30 20:48 [PATCH] locking: " Jann Horn
2023-11-30 21:53 ` Waiman Long
2023-11-30 22:24   ` Jann Horn
2023-11-30 23:56     ` Waiman Long
2023-12-01 10:33     ` [PATCH -v2] locking/mutex: " Ingo Molnar
2023-12-02  1:37       ` Bagas Sanjaya
2023-12-01 10:20   ` [PATCH] locking: " Ingo Molnar
2023-12-01  0:33 ` Waiman Long
2023-12-01 15:01   ` Jann Horn
     [not found]     ` <a9e19ad0-9a27-4885-a6ac-bebd3e997b02@redhat.com>
2023-12-01 16:03       ` Jann Horn
2023-12-01 18:12     ` David Laight
2023-12-01 18:18       ` Jann Horn
     [not found]         ` <1bcee696-d751-413c-a2ec-4a8480bae00b@redhat.com>
     [not found]           ` <780e652ff52044d4a213cacbd9276cf8@AcuMS.aculab.com>
2023-12-01 19:15             ` Waiman Long
2023-12-02 15:51               ` David Laight
2023-12-02 22:39                 ` Waiman Long
2023-12-01  9:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-12-01 15:58   ` Jann Horn
2023-12-01 10:44 ` tip-bot2 for Jann Horn [this message]
2023-12-01 12:18   ` [tip: locking/core] locking/mutex: " Peter Zijlstra
2024-01-08  8:45     ` [PATCH] locking/mutex: Clarify that mutex_unlock(), and most other sleeping locks, cannot be used to reference-count objects Ingo Molnar
2024-01-08  9:00       ` [PATCH -v2] locking/mutex: Clarify that mutex_unlock(), and most other sleeping locks, can still use the lock object after it's unlocked Ingo Molnar
2024-01-08 15:28       ` [PATCH] locking/mutex: Clarify that mutex_unlock(), and most other sleeping locks, cannot be used to reference-count objects Jann Horn
2024-01-08  9:01     ` [tip: locking/core] locking/mutex: Clarify that mutex_unlock(), and most other sleeping locks, can still use the lock object after it's unlocked tip-bot2 for Ingo Molnar

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=170142744948.398.4203675877225809071.tip-bot2@tip-bot2 \
    --to=tip-bot2@linutronix.de \
    --cc=jannh@google.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®