Re: [PATCH] Fix data race in mark_rt_mutex_waiters

[Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>]

On 1/26/23 17:10, David Laight wrote:
> From: Hernan Ponce de Leon
>> Sent: 26 January 2023 21:07
> ...
>>    static __always_inline void rt_mutex_clear_owner(struct rt_mutex_base
>> *lock)
>> @@ -232,12 +232,7 @@ static __always_inline bool
>> rt_mutex_cmpxchg_release(struct rt_mutex_base *lock,
>>     */
>>    static __always_inline void mark_rt_mutex_waiters(struct rt_mutex_base
>> *lock)
>>    {
>> -	unsigned long owner, *p = (unsigned long *) &lock->owner;
>> -
>> -	do {
>> -		owner = *p;
>> -	} while (cmpxchg_relaxed(p, owner,
>> -				 owner | RT_MUTEX_HAS_WAITERS) != owner);
>> +	atomic_long_or(RT_MUTEX_HAS_WAITERS, (atomic_long_t *)&lock->owner);
> These *(int_type *)&foo accesses (quite often just plain wrong)
> made me look up the definitions.
>
> All one big accident waiting to happen...
> RT_MUTEX_HAS_WAITERS is defined in a different header to the structure.
> The explanatory comment is in a 3rd file.
>
> It would all be safer if lock->owner were atomic_long_t with a comment
> that it was the waiting task_struct | RT_MUTEX_HAS_WAITERS.
>
> Given the actual definition is rt_mutex_base_is_locked() even correct?

It is arguable if it should be considered locked if a waiter is waiting 
but the lock is at an unlock state at the moment. Mutex has a narrower 
definition of locked while others have a broader one.

Cheers,
Longman