mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To: Yao Kai <yaokai34@huawei.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
	peterz@infradead.org, dvhart@infradead.org, dave@stgolabs.net,
	andrealmeid@igalia.com, liuyongqiang13@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] futex/requeue: Fix rtmutex schedule preparation for requeue PI
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2026 16:58:47 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260720145847.QW7LB9jE@linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <89dce8bf-8aec-4b3a-a588-f3dab35e8977@huawei.com>

On 2026-07-20 10:40:03 [+0800], Yao Kai wrote:
> I have a test but it only triggers the warning. The concern about calling
> rt_mutex_pre_schedule() after the proxy waiter has been enqueued came from
> audit. A generic PREEMPT_RT path could be:
> 
>   rt_mutex_pre_schedule()
>     sched_submit_work()
>       blk_flush_plug()
>         __blk_flush_plug()
>           flush_plug_callbacks()
>             drbd_unplug()
>               spin_lock_irq()
>                 rtlock_slowlock()
>                   task_blocks_on_rt_mutex()
>                     current->pi_blocked_on = waiter
> 
> However, I could not find a path for FUTEX_WAIT_REQUEUE_PI to enter with a
> live current->plug or worker flags, so this recursion is not reachable from
> this syscall.

So the suggestion is okay then?
…

> > what about the following? This might compile but lacks all kind of testing.
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/futex/requeue.c b/kernel/futex/requeue.c
> > index 79823ad136830..42a04e6e774c4 100644
> > --- a/kernel/futex/requeue.c
> > +++ b/kernel/futex/requeue.c
> > @@ -865,7 +865,9 @@ int futex_wait_requeue_pi(u32 __user *uaddr, unsigned int flags,
> >   	case Q_REQUEUE_PI_DONE:
> >   		/* Requeue completed. Current is 'pi_blocked_on' the rtmutex */
> >   		pi_mutex = &q.pi_state->pi_mutex;
> > +		rt_mutex_pre_schedule();
> >   		ret = rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock(pi_mutex, to, &rt_waiter);
> > +		rt_mutex_post_schedule();
> >   		/*
> >   		 * See futex_unlock_pi()'s cleanup: comment.
> 
> This also fixes the warning in my test. I would keep rt_mutex_post_schedule()
> after the proxy waiter cleanup, as futex_lock_pi() does:

But why?

> diff --git a/kernel/futex/requeue.c b/kernel/futex/requeue.c
> index 79823ad13683..41ffc795d12c 100644
> --- a/kernel/futex/requeue.c
> +++ b/kernel/futex/requeue.c
> @@ -865,6 +865,7 @@ int futex_wait_requeue_pi(u32 __user *uaddr, unsigned int flags,
>         case Q_REQUEUE_PI_DONE:
>                 /* Requeue completed. Current is 'pi_blocked_on' the rtmutex */
>                 pi_mutex = &q.pi_state->pi_mutex;
> +               rt_mutex_pre_schedule();
>                 ret = rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock(pi_mutex, to, &rt_waiter);
>                 /*
> @@ -875,6 +876,7 @@ int futex_wait_requeue_pi(u32 __user *uaddr, unsigned int flags,
>                 futex_q_lockptr_lock(&q);
>                 debug_rt_mutex_free_waiter(&rt_waiter);
> +               rt_mutex_post_schedule();

But there is futex_q_lockptr_lock() from what I see in the context. This
one should trigger the warning if it is done as you suggest.

>                 /*
>                  * Fixup the pi_state owner and possibly acquire the lock if we
>                  * haven't already.
> 
> Thanks,
> Yao

Sebastian

  reply	other threads:[~2026-07-20 14:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-07-17  8:49 [PATCH 0/2] futex/requeue: Fix requeue PI races Yao Kai
2026-07-17  8:49 ` [PATCH 1/2] futex/requeue: Fix rtmutex schedule preparation for requeue PI Yao Kai
2026-07-17  8:55   ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-07-20  2:40     ` Yao Kai
2026-07-20 14:58       ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior [this message]
2026-07-21  1:51         ` Yao Kai
2026-07-21  7:23           ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-07-21  9:02             ` Yao Kai
2026-07-21  9:45               ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-07-17  8:49 ` [PATCH 2/2] futex/requeue: Prevent rcuwait use-after-free during " Yao Kai
2026-07-17  9:38   ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-07-20  2:50     ` Yao Kai
2026-07-20 14:55       ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-07-21  2:19         ` Yao Kai
2026-07-21  7:19           ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior

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=20260720145847.QW7LB9jE@linutronix.de \
    --to=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
    --cc=andrealmeid@igalia.com \
    --cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
    --cc=dvhart@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=liuyongqiang13@huawei.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tglx@kernel.org \
    --cc=yaokai34@huawei.com \
    /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

Powered by JetHome