Skip to content

Commit 397335f

Browse files
committed
rtmutex: Fix deadlock detector for real
The current deadlock detection logic does not work reliably due to the following early exit path: /* * Drop out, when the task has no waiters. Note, * top_waiter can be NULL, when we are in the deboosting * mode! */ if (top_waiter && (!task_has_pi_waiters(task) || top_waiter != task_top_pi_waiter(task))) goto out_unlock_pi; So this not only exits when the task has no waiters, it also exits unconditionally when the current waiter is not the top priority waiter of the task. So in a nested locking scenario, it might abort the lock chain walk and therefor miss a potential deadlock. Simple fix: Continue the chain walk, when deadlock detection is enabled. We also avoid the whole enqueue, if we detect the deadlock right away (A-A). It's an optimization, but also prevents that another waiter who comes in after the detection and before the task has undone the damage observes the situation and detects the deadlock and returns -EDEADLOCK, which is wrong as the other task is not in a deadlock situation. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140522031949.725272460@linutronix.de Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
1 parent f0d71b3 commit 397335f

File tree

1 file changed

+28
-4
lines changed

1 file changed

+28
-4
lines changed

kernel/locking/rtmutex.c

Lines changed: 28 additions & 4 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -343,9 +343,16 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(struct task_struct *task,
343343
* top_waiter can be NULL, when we are in the deboosting
344344
* mode!
345345
*/
346-
if (top_waiter && (!task_has_pi_waiters(task) ||
347-
top_waiter != task_top_pi_waiter(task)))
348-
goto out_unlock_pi;
346+
if (top_waiter) {
347+
if (!task_has_pi_waiters(task))
348+
goto out_unlock_pi;
349+
/*
350+
* If deadlock detection is off, we stop here if we
351+
* are not the top pi waiter of the task.
352+
*/
353+
if (!detect_deadlock && top_waiter != task_top_pi_waiter(task))
354+
goto out_unlock_pi;
355+
}
349356

350357
/*
351358
* When deadlock detection is off then we check, if further
@@ -361,7 +368,12 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(struct task_struct *task,
361368
goto retry;
362369
}
363370

364-
/* Deadlock detection */
371+
/*
372+
* Deadlock detection. If the lock is the same as the original
373+
* lock which caused us to walk the lock chain or if the
374+
* current lock is owned by the task which initiated the chain
375+
* walk, we detected a deadlock.
376+
*/
365377
if (lock == orig_lock || rt_mutex_owner(lock) == top_task) {
366378
debug_rt_mutex_deadlock(deadlock_detect, orig_waiter, lock);
367379
raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
@@ -527,6 +539,18 @@ static int task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(struct rt_mutex *lock,
527539
unsigned long flags;
528540
int chain_walk = 0, res;
529541

542+
/*
543+
* Early deadlock detection. We really don't want the task to
544+
* enqueue on itself just to untangle the mess later. It's not
545+
* only an optimization. We drop the locks, so another waiter
546+
* can come in before the chain walk detects the deadlock. So
547+
* the other will detect the deadlock and return -EDEADLOCK,
548+
* which is wrong, as the other waiter is not in a deadlock
549+
* situation.
550+
*/
551+
if (detect_deadlock && owner == task)
552+
return -EDEADLK;
553+
530554
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&task->pi_lock, flags);
531555
__rt_mutex_adjust_prio(task);
532556
waiter->task = task;

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)