From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@xxxxxxxxx>
4.9.115-rt94-rc1 stable review patch.
If you have any objection to the inclusion of this patch, let me know.
--- 8< --- 8< --- 8< ---
[ Upstream commit 6b0ef92fee2a3189eba6d6b827b247cb4f6da7e9 ]
When running rcutorture with TREE03 config, CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y, and
kernel cmdline argument "rcutorture.gp_exp=1", lockdep reports a
HARDIRQ-safe->HARDIRQ-unsafe deadlock:
=============================== WARNING: inconsistent lock state
4.16.0-rc4+ #1 Not tainted
--------------------------------
inconsistent {IN-HARDIRQ-W} -> {HARDIRQ-ON-W} usage.
takes:
__schedule+0xbe/0xaf0
{IN-HARDIRQ-W} state was registered at:
_raw_spin_lock+0x2a/0x40
scheduler_tick+0x47/0xf0
...
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0
----
lock(&rq->lock);
<Interrupt>
lock(&rq->lock);
*** DEADLOCK ***
1 lock held by rcu_torture_rea/724:
rcu_torture_read_lock+0x0/0x70
stack backtrace:
CPU: 2 PID: 724 Comm: rcu_torture_rea Not tainted 4.16.0-rc4+ #1
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.11.0-20171110_100015-anatol 04/01/2014
Call Trace:
lock_acquire+0x90/0x200
? __schedule+0xbe/0xaf0
_raw_spin_lock+0x2a/0x40
? __schedule+0xbe/0xaf0
__schedule+0xbe/0xaf0
preempt_schedule_irq+0x2f/0x60
retint_kernel+0x1b/0x2d
RIP: 0010:rcu_read_unlock_special+0x0/0x680
? rcu_torture_read_unlock+0x60/0x60
__rcu_read_unlock+0x64/0x70
rcu_torture_read_unlock+0x17/0x60
rcu_torture_reader+0x275/0x450
? rcutorture_booster_init+0x110/0x110
? rcu_torture_stall+0x230/0x230
? kthread+0x10e/0x130
kthread+0x10e/0x130
? kthread_create_worker_on_cpu+0x70/0x70
? call_usermodehelper_exec_async+0x11a/0x150
ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50
This happens with the following even sequence:
preempt_schedule_irq();
local_irq_enable();
__schedule():
local_irq_disable(); // irq off
...
rcu_note_context_switch():
rcu_note_preempt_context_switch():
rcu_read_unlock_special():
local_irq_save(flags);
...
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(...,flags); // irq remains off
rt_mutex_futex_unlock():
raw_spin_lock_irq();
...
raw_spin_unlock_irq(); // accidentally set irq on
<return to __schedule()>
rq_lock():
raw_spin_lock(); // acquiring rq->lock with irq on
which means rq->lock becomes a HARDIRQ-unsafe lock, which can cause
deadlocks in scheduler code.
This problem was introduced by commit 02a7c234e540 ("rcu: Suppress
lockdep false-positive ->boost_mtx complaints"). That brought the user
of rt_mutex_futex_unlock() with irq off.
To fix this, replace the *lock_irq() in rt_mutex_futex_unlock() with
*lock_irq{save,restore}() to make it safe to call rt_mutex_futex_unlock()
with irq off.
Fixes: 02a7c234e540 ("rcu: Suppress lockdep false-positive ->boost_mtx complaints")
Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180309065630.8283-1-boqun.feng@xxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Julia Cartwright <julia@xxxxxx>
---
kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
index 57361d631749..5e15f5c73637 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
@@ -2213,11 +2213,12 @@ void __sched rt_mutex_futex_unlock(struct rt_mutex *lock)
{
WAKE_Q(wake_q);
WAKE_Q(wake_sleeper_q);
+ unsigned long flags;
bool postunlock;
- raw_spin_lock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
+ raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
postunlock = __rt_mutex_futex_unlock(lock, &wake_q, &wake_sleeper_q);
- raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
+ raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
if (postunlock)
rt_mutex_postunlock(&wake_q, &wake_sleeper_q);
--
2.18.0
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
