Firstly, I am glad to see that you did not redirect all my mails to
"/dev/null". ;-)
On 09/13/2013 07:36 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Darren Hart wrote:
>> On Thu, 2013-09-12 at 16:32 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Aug 2013, Chen Gang wrote:
>>>
>>>> rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock() can return failure code (e.g. -EINTR,
>>>> -ETIMEDOUT).
>>>>
>>>> Original implementation has already noticed about it, but not check it
>>>> before next work.
>>>>
>>>> Also let coments within 80 columns to pass "./scripts/checkpatch.pl".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <gang.c...@asianux.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> kernel/futex.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++--------------
>>>> 1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/kernel/futex.c b/kernel/futex.c
>>>> index c3a1a55..1a94e7d 100644
>>>> --- a/kernel/futex.c
>>>> +++ b/kernel/futex.c
>>>> @@ -2373,21 +2373,23 @@ static int futex_wait_requeue_pi(u32 __user
>>>> *uaddr, unsigned int flags,
>>>> ret = rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock(pi_mutex, to, &rt_waiter,
>>>> 1);
>>>> debug_rt_mutex_free_waiter(&rt_waiter);
>>>>
>>>> - spin_lock(q.lock_ptr);
>>>> - /*
>>>> - * Fixup the pi_state owner and possibly acquire the lock if
>>>> we
>>>> - * haven't already.
>>>> - */
>>>> - res = fixup_owner(uaddr2, &q, !ret);
>>>> - /*
>>>> - * If fixup_owner() returned an error, proprogate that. If
>>>> it
>>>> - * acquired the lock, clear -ETIMEDOUT or -EINTR.
>>>> - */
>>>> - if (res)
>>>> - ret = (res < 0) ? res : 0;
>>>> + if (!ret) {
>>>
>>> Again. This is completely wrong!
>>>
Yeah, really it is.
>>> We MUST call fixup_owner even if finish_proxy_lock() returned with an
>>> error code. Simply because finish_proxy_lock() is called outside of
>>> the spin_lock(q.lock_ptr) region and another thread might have
>>> modified the futex state. So we need to handle the corner cases
>>> otherwise we might leave the futex in some undefined state.
>>>
>>> You're reintroducing a hard to decode bug, which got analyzed and
>>> fixed in futex_lock_pi() years ago. See the history for the
>>> explanation.
>>>
Thank you for your details explanation.
>>> Sigh.
>>>
>>> tglx
>>
>> Chen, perhaps you can let us know what the failure scenario is that you
>> are trying to address with this patch.
>
> No failure scenario at all.
>
> Chen is on a self defined agenda to fix random kernel bugs in random
> kernel subdirectories on a given rate by all means. (Google yourself
> for the details.)
>
Hmm... what you said is partly correct -- it is part of my goal (at
least, I feel it is valuable to kernel).
Others which you did not mention, but still related with kernel:
1. LTP (Linux Test Project), which I will start at q4 of 2013, which can let
me provide more tests on kernel (also can find more kernel issues).
2. gcc/binutils: which can find more issues both for kernel and gcc/binutils
(I am also communicating with gcc folks too).
3. Documents (or trivial patches): which I am trying, but seems I did not do
quite well.
> That crusade does not involve any failure analysis or test cases. It's
> just driven by mechanically checking the code for inconsistencies. Now
> he tripped over a non obvious return value chain in the futex code. So
> instead of figuring out why it is coded this way, he just mechanically
> decided that there is a missing check. Though:
>
> The return value is checked and it needs deep understanding of the way
> how futexes work to grok why it's necessary to invoke fixup_owner()
> independent of the rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock() return value.
>
> The code in question is:
>
> ret = rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock(pi_mutex, to, &rt_waiter, 1);
>
> spin_lock(q.lock_ptr);
> /*
> * Fixup the pi_state owner and possibly acquire the lock if we
> * haven't already.
> */
> res = fixup_owner(uaddr2, &q, !ret);
> /*
> * If fixup_owner() returned an error, proprogate that. If it
> * acquired the lock, clear -ETIMEDOUT or -EINTR.
> */
> if (res)
> ret = (res < 0) ? res : 0;
>
> If you can understand the comments in the code and you are able to
> follow the implementation of fixup_owner() and the usage of "!ret" as
> an argument you really should be able to figure out, why this is
> correct.
>
> I'm well aware, as you are, that this code is hard to grok. BUT:
>
> If this code in futex_wait_requeue_pi() is wrong why did Chen's
> correctness checker not trigger on the following code in
> futex_lock_pi()?:
>
> if (!trylock)
> ret = rt_mutex_timed_lock(&q.pi_state->pi_mutex, to, 1);
> else {
> ret = rt_mutex_trylock(&q.pi_state->pi_mutex);
> /* Fixup the trylock return value: */
> ret = ret ? 0 : -EWOULDBLOCK;
> }
>
> spin_lock(q.lock_ptr);
> /*
> * Fixup the pi_state owner and possibly acquire the lock if we
> * haven't already.
> */
> res = fixup_owner(uaddr, &q, !ret);
> /*
> * If fixup_owner() returned an error, proprogate that. If it acquired
> * the lock, clear our -ETIMEDOUT or -EINTR.
> */
> if (res)
> ret = (res < 0) ? res : 0;
>
> It's the very same pattern and according to Chen's logic broken as
> well.
>
> As I recommended to Chen to read the history of futex.c, I just can
> recommend the same thing to you to figure out why the heck this is the
> correct way to handle it.
>
> Hint: The relevant commit starts with: cdf
>
> The code has changed quite a bit since then, but the issue which is
> described quite well in the commit log is still the same.
>
> Just for the record:
>
> Line 48 of futex.c says: "The futexes are also cursed."
>
Thank you for your explanation (especially spend you expensive time
resources on it).
It is my fault:
the 'ret' which return from rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock(), is used by the next
fixup_owner().
Thanks.
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
>
>
--
Chen Gang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
