From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752018AbdKFKX1 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 6 Nov 2017 05:23:27 -0500
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([65.50.211.133]:59526 "EHLO
        bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751875AbdKFKXY (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 6 Nov 2017 05:23:24 -0500
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 11:23:12 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Julia Cartwright <julia@ni.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Gratian Crisan <gratian.crisan@ni.com>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] futex: Drop now unnecessary check in exit_pi_state()
Message-ID: <20171106102312.GE3165@worktop.lehotels.local>
References: <20171103223028.31984-1-julia@ni.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171103223028.31984-1-julia@ni.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22.1 (2013-10-16)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 05:30:28PM -0500, Julia Cartwright wrote:
> This check was an attempt to protect against a race with put_pi_state()
> by ensuring that the pi_state_list was consistent across the
> unlock/lock of pi_lock.
> 
> However, as of commit 153fbd1226fb3 ("futex: Fix more put_pi_state() vs.
> exit_pi_state_list() races"), this check is no longer necessary because
> we now hold a reference to the pi_state object across the unlock/lock of
> pi_lock.  This reference guarantees that a put_pi_state() on another CPU
> won't rip the pi_state object from the list when we drop pi_lock.

> @@ -929,17 +928,6 @@ void exit_pi_state_list(struct task_struct *curr)
>  		spin_lock(&hb->lock);
>  		raw_spin_lock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
>  		raw_spin_lock(&curr->pi_lock);
> -		/*
> -		 * We dropped the pi-lock, so re-check whether this
> -		 * task still owns the PI-state:
> -		 */
> -		if (head->next != next) {

Quite possibly you're right, but I would sleep a whole lot better if
that were to remain a WARN. You never know with this futex stuff :-)