The WARN_ON() in the fixup return path of futex_lock_pi() can
trigger with false positives.
The following scenario happens:
t1 holds the futex and t2 and t3 are blocked on the kernel side rt_mutex.
t1 releases the futex (and the rt_mutex) and assigned t2 to be the next
owner of the futex.
t2 is interrupted and returns w/o acquiring the rt_mutex, before t1 can
release the rtmutex.
t1 releases the rtmutex and t3 becomes the pending owner of the rtmutex.
t2 notices that it is the designated owner (user space variable) and
fails to acquire the rt_mutex via trylock, because it is not allowed to
steal the rt_mutex from t3. Now it looks at the rt_mutex pending owner (t3)
and assigns the futex and the pi_state to it.
During the fixup t4 steals the rtmutex from t3.
t2 returns from the fixup and the owner of the rt_mutex has changed from
t3 to t4.
There is no need to do another round of fixups from t2. The important
part (t2 is not returning as the user space visible owner) is
done. The further fixups are done, before either t3 or t4 return to
user space.
For the user space it is not relevant which task (t3 or t4) is the real
owner, as long as those are both in the kernel, which is guaranteed by
the serialization of the hash bucket lock. Both tasks (which ever returns
first to userspace - t4 because it locked the rt_mutex or t3 due to a signal)
are going through the lock_futex_pi() return path where the ownership is
fixed before the return to user space.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
owner = rt_mutex_owner(&q.pi_state->pi_mutex);
res = fixup_pi_state_owner(uaddr, &q, owner);
- WARN_ON(rt_mutex_owner(&q.pi_state->pi_mutex) !=
- owner);
-
/* propagate -EFAULT, if the fixup failed */
if (res)
ret = res;