Some new assertions pointed out that the existing code has nested rt_mutex wait
state in the futex code.
Specifically, the futex_lock_pi() cancel case uses spin_lock() while there
still is a rt_waiter enqueued for this task, resulting in a state where there
are two waiters for the same task (and task_struct::pi_blocked_on gets
scrambled).
The reason to take hb->lock at this point is to avoid the wake_futex_pi()
EAGAIN case.
This happens when futex_top_waiter() and rt_mutex_top_waiter() state becomes
inconsistent. The current rules are such that this inconsistency will not be
observed.
Notably the case that needs to be avoided is where futex_lock_pi() and
futex_unlock_pi() interleave such that unlock will fail to observe a new
waiter.
*However* the case at hand is where a waiter is leaving, in this case the race
means a waiter that is going away is not observed -- which is harmless,
provided this race is explicitly handled.
This is a somewhat dangerous proposition because the converse race is not
observing a new waiter, which must absolutely not happen. But since the race is
valid this cannot be asserted.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Tested-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230915151943.GD6743@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net
Li zeming
peterz@infradead.org