Re: [PATCH v2] locking/rtmutex: Always use trylock in rt_mutex_trylock()

From: Thomas Gleixner
Date: Mon Oct 07 2024 - 08:15:28 EST


On Wed, Oct 02 2024 at 15:01, Waiman Long wrote:
> One reason to use a trylock is to avoid a ABBA deadlock in case we need
> to use a locking sequence that is not in the expected locking order. That
> requires the use of trylock all the ways in the abnormal locking
> sequence. Unfortunately, this is not the case for rt_mutex_trylock() as
> it uses a raw_spin_lock_irqsave() to acquire the lock->wait_lock.
>
> There are just a few rt_mutex_trylock() call sites in the stock kernel.
> For PREEMPT_RT kernel, however, all the spin_trylock() calls become
> rt_mutex_trylock(). There are a few hundreds of them. So it will be a lot
> easier to trigger a circular locking lockdep splat like the following.
>
> [ 63.695668] -> #0 (&lock->wait_lock){-...}-{2:2}:
> [ 63.695674] check_prev_add+0x1bd/0x1310
> [ 63.695678] validate_chain+0x6cf/0x7c0
> [ 63.695682] __lock_acquire+0x879/0xf40
> [ 63.695686] lock_acquire.part.0+0xfa/0x2d0
> [ 63.695690] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x46/0x90
> [ 63.695695] rt_mutex_slowtrylock+0x3f/0xb0
> [ 63.695699] rt_spin_trylock+0x13/0xc0
> [ 63.695702] rmqueue_pcplist+0x5b/0x180
> [ 63.695705] rmqueue+0xb01/0x1040
> :
> [ 63.695840] other info that might help us debug this:
> [ 63.695840]
> [ 63.695842] Chain exists of:
> [ 63.695842] &lock->wait_lock --> &p->pi_lock --> &rq->__lock
> [ 63.695842]
> [ 63.695850] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> [ 63.695850]
> [ 63.695851] CPU0 CPU1
> [ 63.695852] ---- ----
> [ 63.695854] lock(&rq->__lock);
> [ 63.695857] lock(&p->pi_lock);
> [ 63.695861] lock(&rq->__lock);
> [ 63.695864] lock(&lock->wait_lock);
> [ 63.695868]
> [ 63.695868] *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> Fix it by using raw_spin_trylock_irqsave() instead.
>
> Fixes: 23f78d4a03c5 ("[PATCH] pi-futex: rt mutex core")
> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx>

Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>