From: Thomas Gleixner tglx@linutronix.de

commit 12bb3f7f1b03d5913b3f9d4236a488aa7774dfe9 upstream

In case that futex_lock_pi() was aborted by a signal or a timeout and the task returned without acquiring the rtmutex, but is the designated owner of the futex due to a concurrent futex_unlock_pi() fixup_owner() is invoked to establish consistent state. In that case it invokes fixup_pi_state_owner() which in turn tries to acquire the rtmutex again. If that succeeds then it does not propagate this success to fixup_owner() and futex_lock_pi() returns -EINTR or -ETIMEOUT despite having the futex locked.

Return success from fixup_pi_state_owner() in all cases where the current task owns the rtmutex and therefore the futex and propagate it correctly through fixup_owner(). Fixup the other callsite which does not expect a positive return value.

Fixes: c1e2f0eaf015 ("futex: Avoid violating the 10th rule of futex") Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner tglx@linutronix.de Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) peterz@infradead.org Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org [Sharan: Backported patch for kernel 4.4.y. Also folded in is a part of the cleanup patch d7c5ed73b19c("futex: Remove needless goto's")] Signed-off-by: Sharan Turlapati sturlapati@vmware.com --- kernel/futex.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/futex.c b/kernel/futex.c index 199e63c5b612..49cd9f6316e5 100644 --- a/kernel/futex.c +++ b/kernel/futex.c @@ -2287,7 +2287,7 @@ retry: }

if (__rt_mutex_futex_trylock(&pi_state->pi_mutex)) { - /* We got the lock after all, nothing to fix. */ + /* We got the lock. pi_state is correct. Tell caller */ return 1; }

@@ -2329,7 +2329,7 @@ retry: */ pi_state_update_owner(pi_state, newowner);

- return 0; + return argowner == current;

/* * To handle the page fault we need to drop the hash bucket @@ -2412,8 +2412,6 @@ static long futex_wait_restart(struct restart_block *restart); */ static int fixup_owner(u32 __user *uaddr, struct futex_q *q, int locked) { - int ret = 0; - if (locked) { /* * Got the lock. We might not be the anticipated owner if we @@ -2424,8 +2422,8 @@ static int fixup_owner(u32 __user *uaddr, struct futex_q *q, int locked) * stable state, anything else needs more attention. */ if (q->pi_state->owner != current) - ret = fixup_pi_state_owner(uaddr, q, current); - goto out; + return fixup_pi_state_owner(uaddr, q, current); + return 1; }

/* @@ -2436,10 +2434,8 @@ static int fixup_owner(u32 __user *uaddr, struct futex_q *q, int locked) * Another speculative read; pi_state->owner == current is unstable * but needs our attention. */ - if (q->pi_state->owner == current) { - ret = fixup_pi_state_owner(uaddr, q, NULL); - goto out; - } + if (q->pi_state->owner == current) + return fixup_pi_state_owner(uaddr, q, NULL);

/* * Paranoia check. If we did not take the lock, then we should not be @@ -2448,8 +2444,7 @@ static int fixup_owner(u32 __user *uaddr, struct futex_q *q, int locked) if (WARN_ON_ONCE(rt_mutex_owner(&q->pi_state->pi_mutex) == current)) return fixup_pi_state_owner(uaddr, q, current);

-out: - return ret ? ret : locked; + return 0; }

/** @@ -3071,6 +3066,11 @@ static int futex_wait_requeue_pi(u32 __user *uaddr, unsigned int flags, */ free_pi_state(q.pi_state); spin_unlock(q.lock_ptr); + /* + * Adjust the return value. It's either -EFAULT or + * success (1) but the caller expects 0 for success. + */ + ret = ret < 0 ? ret : 0; } } else { struct rt_mutex *pi_mutex;