[PATCH] futex: Fix pi_state->owner serialization

[Peter Zijlstra]

There was a reported suspicion about a race between
exit_pi_state_list() and put_pi_state(). The same report mentioned the
comment with put_pi_state() said it should be called with hb->lock
held, and it no longer is in all places.

And as it turns out, the pi_state->owner serialization is indeed
broken. As per the new rules:

  734009e96d19 ("futex: Change locking rules")

pi_state->owner should be serialized by pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock.
For the sites setting pi_state->owner we already hold wait_lock (where
required) but exit_pi_state_list() and put_pi_state() were not and
raced on clearing it.

Fixes: 734009e96d19 ("futex: Change locking rules")
Reported-by: Gratian Crisan <gratian.crisan@xxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
 kernel/futex.c |   33 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

--- a/kernel/futex.c
+++ b/kernel/futex.c
@@ -821,8 +821,6 @@ static void get_pi_state(struct futex_pi
 /*
  * Drops a reference to the pi_state object and frees or caches it
  * when the last reference is gone.
- *
- * Must be called with the hb lock held.
  */
 static void put_pi_state(struct futex_pi_state *pi_state)
 {
@@ -837,16 +835,22 @@ static void put_pi_state(struct futex_pi
 	 * and has cleaned up the pi_state already
 	 */
 	if (pi_state->owner) {
-		raw_spin_lock_irq(&pi_state->owner->pi_lock);
-		list_del_init(&pi_state->list);
-		raw_spin_unlock_irq(&pi_state->owner->pi_lock);
+		struct task_struct *owner;
 
-		rt_mutex_proxy_unlock(&pi_state->pi_mutex, pi_state->owner);
+		raw_spin_lock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
+		owner = pi_state->owner;
+		if (owner) {
+			raw_spin_lock(&owner->pi_lock);
+			list_del_init(&pi_state->list);
+			raw_spin_unlock(&owner->pi_lock);
+		}
+		rt_mutex_proxy_unlock(&pi_state->pi_mutex, owner);
+		raw_spin_unlock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
 	}
 
-	if (current->pi_state_cache)
+	if (current->pi_state_cache) {
 		kfree(pi_state);
-	else {
+	} else {
 		/*
 		 * pi_state->list is already empty.
 		 * clear pi_state->owner.
@@ -907,13 +911,14 @@ void exit_pi_state_list(struct task_stru
 		raw_spin_unlock_irq(&curr->pi_lock);
 
 		spin_lock(&hb->lock);
-
-		raw_spin_lock_irq(&curr->pi_lock);
+		raw_spin_lock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
+		raw_spin_lock(&curr->pi_lock);
 		/*
 		 * We dropped the pi-lock, so re-check whether this
 		 * task still owns the PI-state:
 		 */
 		if (head->next != next) {
+			raw_spin_unlock(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
 			spin_unlock(&hb->lock);
 			continue;
 		}
@@ -922,9 +927,10 @@ void exit_pi_state_list(struct task_stru
 		WARN_ON(list_empty(&pi_state->list));
 		list_del_init(&pi_state->list);
 		pi_state->owner = NULL;
-		raw_spin_unlock_irq(&curr->pi_lock);
+		raw_spin_unlock(&curr->pi_lock);
 
 		get_pi_state(pi_state);
+		raw_spin_unlock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
 		spin_unlock(&hb->lock);
 
 		rt_mutex_futex_unlock(&pi_state->pi_mutex);
@@ -1208,6 +1214,10 @@ static int attach_to_pi_owner(u32 uval,
 
 	WARN_ON(!list_empty(&pi_state->list));
 	list_add(&pi_state->list, &p->pi_state_list);
+	/*
+	 * Assignment without holding pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock is safe
+	 * because there is no concurrency as the object is not published yet.
+	 */
 	pi_state->owner = p;
 	raw_spin_unlock_irq(&p->pi_lock);
 
@@ -2878,6 +2888,7 @@ static int futex_unlock_pi(u32 __user *u
 		raw_spin_lock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
 		spin_unlock(&hb->lock);
 
+		/* drops pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock */
 		ret = wake_futex_pi(uaddr, uval, pi_state);
 
 		put_pi_state(pi_state);