lethliel/glibc
1
0
Fork 0
forked from rpms/glibc
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases Activity
40615243ef
glibc/SOURCES/glibc-rh1672773.patch
CentOS Sources c04956366c import glibc-2.28-158.el8
2021-09-16 08:48:07 +00:00

200 lines
7.8 KiB
Diff
Raw Blame History

commit 823624bdc47f1f80109c9c52dee7939b9386d708
Author: Stefan Liebler <stli@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu Feb 7 15:18:36 2019 +0100
Add compiler barriers around modifications of the robust mutex list for pthread_mutex_trylock. [BZ #24180]
While debugging a kernel warning, Thomas Gleixner, Sebastian Sewior and
Heiko Carstens found a bug in pthread_mutex_trylock due to misordered
instructions:
140: a5 1b 00 01 oill %r1,1
144: e5 48 a0 f0 00 00 mvghi 240(%r10),0 <--- THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending, NULL);
14a: e3 10 a0 e0 00 24 stg %r1,224(%r10) <--- last THREAD_SETMEM of ENQUEUE_MUTEX_PI
vs (with compiler barriers):
140: a5 1b 00 01 oill %r1,1
144: e3 10 a0 e0 00 24 stg %r1,224(%r10)
14a: e5 48 a0 f0 00 00 mvghi 240(%r10),0
Please have a look at the discussion:
"Re: WARN_ON_ONCE(!new_owner) within wake_futex_pi() triggerede"
(https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190202112006.GB3381@osiris/)
This patch is introducing the same compiler barriers and comments
for pthread_mutex_trylock as introduced for pthread_mutex_lock and
pthread_mutex_timedlock by commit 8f9450a0b7a9e78267e8ae1ab1000ebca08e473e
"Add compiler barriers around modifications of the robust mutex list."
ChangeLog:
[BZ #24180]
* nptl/pthread_mutex_trylock.c (__pthread_mutex_trylock):
diff --git a/nptl/pthread_mutex_trylock.c b/nptl/pthread_mutex_trylock.c
index 8fe43b8f0f..bf2869eca2 100644
--- a/nptl/pthread_mutex_trylock.c
+++ b/nptl/pthread_mutex_trylock.c
@@ -94,6 +94,9 @@ __pthread_mutex_trylock (pthread_mutex_t *mutex)
case PTHREAD_MUTEX_ROBUST_ADAPTIVE_NP:
THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending,
&mutex->__data.__list.__next);
+ /* We need to set op_pending before starting the operation. Also
+ see comments at ENQUEUE_MUTEX. */
+ __asm ("" ::: "memory");
oldval = mutex->__data.__lock;
do
@@ -119,7 +122,12 @@ __pthread_mutex_trylock (pthread_mutex_t *mutex)
/* But it is inconsistent unless marked otherwise. */
mutex->__data.__owner = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INCONSISTENT;
+ /* We must not enqueue the mutex before we have acquired it.
+ Also see comments at ENQUEUE_MUTEX. */
+ __asm ("" ::: "memory");
ENQUEUE_MUTEX (mutex);
+ /* We need to clear op_pending after we enqueue the mutex. */
+ __asm ("" ::: "memory");
THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending, NULL);
/* Note that we deliberately exist here. If we fall
@@ -135,6 +143,8 @@ __pthread_mutex_trylock (pthread_mutex_t *mutex)
int kind = PTHREAD_MUTEX_TYPE (mutex);
if (kind == PTHREAD_MUTEX_ROBUST_ERRORCHECK_NP)
{
+ /* We do not need to ensure ordering wrt another memory
+ access. Also see comments at ENQUEUE_MUTEX. */
THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending,
NULL);
return EDEADLK;
@@ -142,6 +152,8 @@ __pthread_mutex_trylock (pthread_mutex_t *mutex)
if (kind == PTHREAD_MUTEX_ROBUST_RECURSIVE_NP)
{
+ /* We do not need to ensure ordering wrt another memory
+ access. */
THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending,
NULL);
@@ -160,6 +172,9 @@ __pthread_mutex_trylock (pthread_mutex_t *mutex)
id, 0);
if (oldval != 0 && (oldval & FUTEX_OWNER_DIED) == 0)
{
+ /* We haven't acquired the lock as it is already acquired by
+ another owner. We do not need to ensure ordering wrt another
+ memory access. */
THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending, NULL);
return EBUSY;
@@ -173,13 +188,20 @@ __pthread_mutex_trylock (pthread_mutex_t *mutex)
if (oldval == id)
lll_unlock (mutex->__data.__lock,
PTHREAD_ROBUST_MUTEX_PSHARED (mutex));
+ /* FIXME This violates the mutex destruction requirements. See
+ __pthread_mutex_unlock_full. */
THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending, NULL);
return ENOTRECOVERABLE;
}
}
while ((oldval & FUTEX_OWNER_DIED) != 0);
+ /* We must not enqueue the mutex before we have acquired it.
+ Also see comments at ENQUEUE_MUTEX. */
+ __asm ("" ::: "memory");
ENQUEUE_MUTEX (mutex);
+ /* We need to clear op_pending after we enqueue the mutex. */
+ __asm ("" ::: "memory");
THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending, NULL);
mutex->__data.__owner = id;
@@ -211,10 +233,15 @@ __pthread_mutex_trylock (pthread_mutex_t *mutex)
}
if (robust)
- /* Note: robust PI futexes are signaled by setting bit 0. */
- THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending,
- (void *) (((uintptr_t) &mutex->__data.__list.__next)
- | 1));
+ {
+ /* Note: robust PI futexes are signaled by setting bit 0. */
+ THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending,
+ (void *) (((uintptr_t) &mutex->__data.__list.__next)
+ | 1));
+ /* We need to set op_pending before starting the operation. Also
+ see comments at ENQUEUE_MUTEX. */
+ __asm ("" ::: "memory");
+ }
oldval = mutex->__data.__lock;
@@ -223,12 +250,16 @@ __pthread_mutex_trylock (pthread_mutex_t *mutex)
{
if (kind == PTHREAD_MUTEX_ERRORCHECK_NP)
{
+ /* We do not need to ensure ordering wrt another memory
+ access. */
THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending, NULL);
return EDEADLK;
}
if (kind == PTHREAD_MUTEX_RECURSIVE_NP)
{
+ /* We do not need to ensure ordering wrt another memory
+ access. */
THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending, NULL);
/* Just bump the counter. */
@@ -250,6 +281,9 @@ __pthread_mutex_trylock (pthread_mutex_t *mutex)
{
if ((oldval & FUTEX_OWNER_DIED) == 0)
{
+ /* We haven't acquired the lock as it is already acquired by
+ another owner. We do not need to ensure ordering wrt another
+ memory access. */
THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending, NULL);
return EBUSY;
@@ -270,6 +304,9 @@ __pthread_mutex_trylock (pthread_mutex_t *mutex)
if (INTERNAL_SYSCALL_ERROR_P (e, __err)
&& INTERNAL_SYSCALL_ERRNO (e, __err) == EWOULDBLOCK)
{
+ /* The kernel has not yet finished the mutex owner death.
+ We do not need to ensure ordering wrt another memory
+ access. */
THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending, NULL);
return EBUSY;
@@ -287,7 +324,12 @@ __pthread_mutex_trylock (pthread_mutex_t *mutex)
/* But it is inconsistent unless marked otherwise. */
mutex->__data.__owner = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INCONSISTENT;
+ /* We must not enqueue the mutex before we have acquired it.
+ Also see comments at ENQUEUE_MUTEX. */
+ __asm ("" ::: "memory");
ENQUEUE_MUTEX (mutex);
+ /* We need to clear op_pending after we enqueue the mutex. */
+ __asm ("" ::: "memory");
THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending, NULL);
/* Note that we deliberately exit here. If we fall
@@ -310,13 +352,20 @@ __pthread_mutex_trylock (pthread_mutex_t *mutex)
PTHREAD_ROBUST_MUTEX_PSHARED (mutex)),
0, 0);
+ /* To the kernel, this will be visible after the kernel has
+ acquired the mutex in the syscall. */
THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending, NULL);
return ENOTRECOVERABLE;
}
if (robust)
{
+ /* We must not enqueue the mutex before we have acquired it.
+ Also see comments at ENQUEUE_MUTEX. */
+ __asm ("" ::: "memory");
ENQUEUE_MUTEX_PI (mutex);
+ /* We need to clear op_pending after we enqueue the mutex. */
+ __asm ("" ::: "memory");
THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending, NULL);
}
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink