4.9-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Prateek Sood prsood@codeaurora.org
commit 50972fe78f24f1cd0b9d7bbf1f87d2be9e4f412e upstream.
Fix ordering of link creation between node->prev and prev->next in osq_lock(). A case in which the status of optimistic spin queue is CPU6->CPU2 in which CPU6 has acquired the lock.
tail v ,-. <- ,-. |6| |2| `-' -> `-'
At this point if CPU0 comes in to acquire osq_lock, it will update the tail count.
CPU2 CPU0 ----------------------------------
tail v ,-. <- ,-. ,-. |6| |2| |0| `-' -> `-' `-'
After tail count update if CPU2 starts to unqueue itself from optimistic spin queue, it will find an updated tail count with CPU0 and update CPU2 node->next to NULL in osq_wait_next().
unqueue-A
tail v ,-. <- ,-. ,-. |6| |2| |0| `-' `-' `-'
unqueue-B
->tail != curr && !node->next
If reordering of following stores happen then prev->next where prev being CPU2 would be updated to point to CPU0 node:
tail v ,-. <- ,-. ,-. |6| |2| |0| `-' `-' -> `-'
osq_wait_next() node->next <- 0 xchg(node->next, NULL)
tail v ,-. <- ,-. ,-. |6| |2| |0| `-' `-' `-'
unqueue-C
At this point if next instruction WRITE_ONCE(next->prev, prev); in CPU2 path is committed before the update of CPU0 node->prev = prev then CPU0 node->prev will point to CPU6 node.
tail v----------. v ,-. <- ,-. ,-. |6| |2| |0| `-' `-' `-' `----------^
At this point if CPU0 path's node->prev = prev is committed resulting in change of CPU0 prev back to CPU2 node. CPU2 node->next is NULL currently,
tail v ,-. <- ,-. <- ,-. |6| |2| |0| `-' `-' `-' `----------^
so if CPU0 gets into unqueue path of osq_lock it will keep spinning in infinite loop as condition prev->next == node will never be true.
Signed-off-by: Prateek Sood prsood@codeaurora.org [ Added pictures, rewrote comments. ] Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) peterz@infradead.org Cc: Linus Torvalds torvalds@linux-foundation.org Cc: Peter Zijlstra peterz@infradead.org Cc: Thomas Gleixner tglx@linutronix.de Cc: sramana@codeaurora.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1500040076-27626-1-git-send-email-prsood@codeaurora... Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar mingo@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Amit Pundir amit.pundir@linaro.org Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
--- kernel/locking/osq_lock.c | 13 +++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
--- a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c +++ b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c @@ -104,6 +104,19 @@ bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_que
prev = decode_cpu(old); node->prev = prev; + + /* + * osq_lock() unqueue + * + * node->prev = prev osq_wait_next() + * WMB MB + * prev->next = node next->prev = prev // unqueue-C + * + * Here 'node->prev' and 'next->prev' are the same variable and we need + * to ensure these stores happen in-order to avoid corrupting the list. + */ + smp_wmb(); + WRITE_ONCE(prev->next, node);
/*