RE: io_uring: incorrect assumption about mutex behavior on unlock?

[David Laight]

From: Jann Horn
> Sent: 01 December 2023 16:41
> 
> mutex_unlock() has a different API contract compared to spin_unlock().
> spin_unlock() can be used to release ownership of an object, so that
> as soon as the spinlock is unlocked, another task is allowed to free
> the object containing the spinlock.
> mutex_unlock() does not support this kind of usage: The caller of
> mutex_unlock() must ensure that the mutex stays alive until
> mutex_unlock() has returned.

The problem sequence might be:
	Thread A		Thread B
	mutex_lock()
				code to stop mutex being requested
				...
				mutex_lock() - sleeps
	mutex_unlock()...
		Waiters woken...
		isr and/or pre-empted
				- wakes up
				mutex_unlock()
				free()
		... more kernel code access the mutex
		BOOOM

What happens in a PREEMPT_RT kernel where most of the spin_unlock()
get replaced by mutex_unlock().
Seems like they can potentially access a freed mutex?

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)