mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>
To: lee@kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@kernel.org>,
	Keenan Dong <keenanat2000@gmail.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org, Yuan Tan <yuantan098@gmail.com>,
	Yifan Wu <yifanwucs@gmail.com>,
	Juefei Pu <tomapufckgml@gmail.com>, Xin Liu <bird@lzu.edu.cn>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: [STABLE v5.10 1/2] rtmutex: Use waiter::task instead of current in remove_waiter()
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2026 08:54:53 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260721075459.1970132-1-lee@kernel.org> (raw)

From: Keenan Dong <keenanat2000@gmail.com>

commit 3bfdc63936dd4773109b7b8c280c0f3b5ae7d349 upstream.

remove_waiter() is used by the slowlock paths, but it is also used for
proxy-lock rollback in rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock() when invoked from
futex_requeue().

In the latter case waiter::task is not current, but remove_waiter()
operates on current for the dequeue operation. That results in several
problems:

  1) the rbtree dequeue happens without waiter::task::pi_lock being held

  2) the waiter task's pi_blocked_on state is not cleared, which leaves a
     dangling pointer primed for UAF around.

  3) rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain() operates on the wrong top priority waiter
     task

Use waiter::task instead of current in all related operations in
remove_waiter() to cure those problems.

[ tglx: Fixup rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(), add a comment and amend the
  	changelog ]

Fixes: 8161239a8bcc ("rtmutex: Simplify PI algorithm and make highest prio task get lock")
Reported-by: Yuan Tan <yuantan098@gmail.com>
Reported-by: Yifan Wu <yifanwucs@gmail.com>
Reported-by: Juefei Pu <tomapufckgml@gmail.com>
Reported-by: Xin Liu <bird@lzu.edu.cn>
Signed-off-by: Keenan Dong <keenanat2000@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@kernel.org>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
(cherry picked from commit d8cce4773c2b23d819baf5abedc62f7b430e8745)
[Lee: Backported to linux-5.10.y from linux-6.1.y]
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>
---
 kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 11 +++++++----
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
index c6a2dafd4a3b..2ab2d6cce004 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
@@ -1061,20 +1061,23 @@ static void mark_wakeup_next_waiter(struct wake_q_head *wake_q,
  *
  * Must be called with lock->wait_lock held and interrupts disabled. I must
  * have just failed to try_to_take_rt_mutex().
+ *
+ * When invoked from rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock() waiter::task != current !
  */
 static void remove_waiter(struct rt_mutex *lock,
 			  struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter)
 {
 	bool is_top_waiter = (waiter == rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock));
 	struct task_struct *owner = rt_mutex_owner(lock);
+	struct task_struct *waiter_task = waiter->task;
 	struct rt_mutex *next_lock;
 
 	lockdep_assert_held(&lock->wait_lock);
 
-	raw_spin_lock(&current->pi_lock);
+	raw_spin_lock(&waiter_task->pi_lock);
 	rt_mutex_dequeue(lock, waiter);
-	current->pi_blocked_on = NULL;
-	raw_spin_unlock(&current->pi_lock);
+	waiter_task->pi_blocked_on = NULL;
+	raw_spin_unlock(&waiter_task->pi_lock);
 
 	/*
 	 * Only update priority if the waiter was the highest priority
@@ -1110,7 +1113,7 @@ static void remove_waiter(struct rt_mutex *lock,
 	raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
 
 	rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(owner, RT_MUTEX_MIN_CHAINWALK, lock,
-				   next_lock, NULL, current);
+				   next_lock, NULL, waiter_task);
 
 	raw_spin_lock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
 }
-- 
2.55.0.229.g6434b31f56-goog


             reply	other threads:[~2026-07-21  7:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-07-21  7:54 Lee Jones [this message]
2026-07-21  7:54 ` [STABLE v5.10 2/2] locking/rtmutex: Skip remove_waiter() when waiter is not enqueued Lee Jones

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=20260721075459.1970132-1-lee@kernel.org \
    --to=lee@kernel.org \
    --cc=bird@lzu.edu.cn \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=keenanat2000@gmail.com \
    --cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@kernel.org \
    --cc=tomapufckgml@gmail.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --cc=yifanwucs@gmail.com \
    --cc=yuantan098@gmail.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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®