License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license
Many source files in the tree are missing licensing information, which
makes it harder for compliance tools to determine the correct license.
By default all files without license information are under the default
license of the kernel, which is GPL version 2.
Update the files which contain no license information with the 'GPL-2.0'
SPDX license identifier. The SPDX identifier is a legally binding
shorthand, which can be used instead of the full boiler plate text.
This patch is based on work done by Thomas Gleixner and Kate Stewart and
Philippe Ombredanne.
How this work was done:
Patches were generated and checked against linux-4.14-rc6 for a subset of
the use cases:
- file had no licensing information it it.
- file was a */uapi/* one with no licensing information in it,
- file was a */uapi/* one with existing licensing information,
Further patches will be generated in subsequent months to fix up cases
where non-standard license headers were used, and references to license
had to be inferred by heuristics based on keywords.
The analysis to determine which SPDX License Identifier to be applied to
a file was done in a spreadsheet of side by side results from of the
output of two independent scanners (ScanCode & Windriver) producing SPDX
tag:value files created by Philippe Ombredanne. Philippe prepared the
base worksheet, and did an initial spot review of a few 1000 files.
The 4.13 kernel was the starting point of the analysis with 60,537 files
assessed. Kate Stewart did a file by file comparison of the scanner
results in the spreadsheet to determine which SPDX license identifier(s)
to be applied to the file. She confirmed any determination that was not
immediately clear with lawyers working with the Linux Foundation.
Criteria used to select files for SPDX license identifier tagging was:
- Files considered eligible had to be source code files.
- Make and config files were included as candidates if they contained >5
lines of source
- File already had some variant of a license header in it (even if <5
lines).
All documentation files were explicitly excluded.
The following heuristics were used to determine which SPDX license
identifiers to apply.
- when both scanners couldn't find any license traces, file was
considered to have no license information in it, and the top level
COPYING file license applied.
For non */uapi/* files that summary was:
SPDX license identifier # files
---------------------------------------------------|-------
GPL-2.0 11139
and resulted in the first patch in this series.
If that file was a */uapi/* path one, it was "GPL-2.0 WITH
Linux-syscall-note" otherwise it was "GPL-2.0". Results of that was:
SPDX license identifier # files
---------------------------------------------------|-------
GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note 930
and resulted in the second patch in this series.
- if a file had some form of licensing information in it, and was one
of the */uapi/* ones, it was denoted with the Linux-syscall-note if
any GPL family license was found in the file or had no licensing in
it (per prior point). Results summary:
SPDX license identifier # files
---------------------------------------------------|------
GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note 270
GPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note 169
((GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR BSD-2-Clause) 21
((GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR BSD-3-Clause) 17
LGPL-2.1+ WITH Linux-syscall-note 15
GPL-1.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note 14
((GPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR BSD-3-Clause) 5
LGPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note 4
LGPL-2.1 WITH Linux-syscall-note 3
((GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR MIT) 3
((GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) AND MIT) 1
and that resulted in the third patch in this series.
- when the two scanners agreed on the detected license(s), that became
the concluded license(s).
- when there was disagreement between the two scanners (one detected a
license but the other didn't, or they both detected different
licenses) a manual inspection of the file occurred.
- In most cases a manual inspection of the information in the file
resulted in a clear resolution of the license that should apply (and
which scanner probably needed to revisit its heuristics).
- When it was not immediately clear, the license identifier was
confirmed with lawyers working with the Linux Foundation.
- If there was any question as to the appropriate license identifier,
the file was flagged for further research and to be revisited later
in time.
In total, over 70 hours of logged manual review was done on the
spreadsheet to determine the SPDX license identifiers to apply to the
source files by Kate, Philippe, Thomas and, in some cases, confirmation
by lawyers working with the Linux Foundation.
Kate also obtained a third independent scan of the 4.13 code base from
FOSSology, and compared selected files where the other two scanners
disagreed against that SPDX file, to see if there was new insights. The
Windriver scanner is based on an older version of FOSSology in part, so
they are related.
Thomas did random spot checks in about 500 files from the spreadsheets
for the uapi headers and agreed with SPDX license identifier in the
files he inspected. For the non-uapi files Thomas did random spot checks
in about 15000 files.
In initial set of patches against 4.14-rc6, 3 files were found to have
copy/paste license identifier errors, and have been fixed to reflect the
correct identifier.
Additionally Philippe spent 10 hours this week doing a detailed manual
inspection and review of the 12,461 patched files from the initial patch
version early this week with:
- a full scancode scan run, collecting the matched texts, detected
license ids and scores
- reviewing anything where there was a license detected (about 500+
files) to ensure that the applied SPDX license was correct
- reviewing anything where there was no detection but the patch license
was not GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note to ensure that the applied
SPDX license was correct
This produced a worksheet with 20 files needing minor correction. This
worksheet was then exported into 3 different .csv files for the
different types of files to be modified.
These .csv files were then reviewed by Greg. Thomas wrote a script to
parse the csv files and add the proper SPDX tag to the file, in the
format that the file expected. This script was further refined by Greg
based on the output to detect more types of files automatically and to
distinguish between header and source .c files (which need different
comment types.) Finally Greg ran the script using the .csv files to
generate the patches.
Reviewed-by: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>
Reviewed-by: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>
Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
2017-11-01 14:07:57 +00:00
|
|
|
/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
|
2006-06-27 09:54:53 +00:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* RT Mutexes: blocking mutual exclusion locks with PI support
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* started by Ingo Molnar and Thomas Gleixner:
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* Copyright (C) 2004-2006 Red Hat, Inc., Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
|
|
|
|
* Copyright (C) 2006, Timesys Corp., Thomas Gleixner <tglx@timesys.com>
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* This file contains the private data structure and API definitions.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#ifndef __KERNEL_RTMUTEX_COMMON_H
|
|
|
|
#define __KERNEL_RTMUTEX_COMMON_H
|
|
|
|
|
2021-03-26 15:29:39 +00:00
|
|
|
#include <linux/debug_locks.h>
|
2006-06-27 09:54:53 +00:00
|
|
|
#include <linux/rtmutex.h>
|
2017-02-01 15:36:40 +00:00
|
|
|
#include <linux/sched/wake_q.h>
|
2006-06-27 09:54:53 +00:00
|
|
|
|
locking/rtmutex: Fix task->pi_waiters integrity
Henry reported that rt_mutex_adjust_prio_check() has an ordering
problem and puts the lie to the comment in [7]. Sharing the sort key
between lock->waiters and owner->pi_waiters *does* create problems,
since unlike what the comment claims, holding [L] is insufficient.
Notably, consider:
A
/ \
M1 M2
| |
B C
That is, task A owns both M1 and M2, B and C block on them. In this
case a concurrent chain walk (B & C) will modify their resp. sort keys
in [7] while holding M1->wait_lock and M2->wait_lock. So holding [L]
is meaningless, they're different Ls.
This then gives rise to a race condition between [7] and [11], where
the requeue of pi_waiters will observe an inconsistent tree order.
B C
(holds M1->wait_lock, (holds M2->wait_lock,
holds B->pi_lock) holds A->pi_lock)
[7]
waiter_update_prio();
...
[8]
raw_spin_unlock(B->pi_lock);
...
[10]
raw_spin_lock(A->pi_lock);
[11]
rt_mutex_enqueue_pi();
// observes inconsistent A->pi_waiters
// tree order
Fixing this means either extending the range of the owner lock from
[10-13] to [6-13], with the immediate problem that this means [6-8]
hold both blocked and owner locks, or duplicating the sort key.
Since the locking in chain walk is horrible enough without having to
consider pi_lock nesting rules, duplicate the sort key instead.
By giving each tree their own sort key, the above race becomes
harmless, if C sees B at the old location, then B will correct things
(if they need correcting) when it walks up the chain and reaches A.
Fixes: fb00aca47440 ("rtmutex: Turn the plist into an rb-tree")
Reported-by: Henry Wu <triangletrap12@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Tested-by: Henry Wu <triangletrap12@gmail.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230707161052.GF2883469%40hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
2023-07-07 14:19:09 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* This is a helper for the struct rt_mutex_waiter below. A waiter goes in two
|
|
|
|
* separate trees and they need their own copy of the sort keys because of
|
|
|
|
* different locking requirements.
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* @entry: rbtree node to enqueue into the waiters tree
|
|
|
|
* @prio: Priority of the waiter
|
|
|
|
* @deadline: Deadline of the waiter if applicable
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* See rt_waiter_node_less() and waiter_*_prio().
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
struct rt_waiter_node {
|
|
|
|
struct rb_node entry;
|
|
|
|
int prio;
|
|
|
|
u64 deadline;
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
2006-06-27 09:54:53 +00:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* This is the control structure for tasks blocked on a rt_mutex,
|
|
|
|
* which is allocated on the kernel stack on of the blocked task.
|
|
|
|
*
|
locking/rtmutex: Fix task->pi_waiters integrity
Henry reported that rt_mutex_adjust_prio_check() has an ordering
problem and puts the lie to the comment in [7]. Sharing the sort key
between lock->waiters and owner->pi_waiters *does* create problems,
since unlike what the comment claims, holding [L] is insufficient.
Notably, consider:
A
/ \
M1 M2
| |
B C
That is, task A owns both M1 and M2, B and C block on them. In this
case a concurrent chain walk (B & C) will modify their resp. sort keys
in [7] while holding M1->wait_lock and M2->wait_lock. So holding [L]
is meaningless, they're different Ls.
This then gives rise to a race condition between [7] and [11], where
the requeue of pi_waiters will observe an inconsistent tree order.
B C
(holds M1->wait_lock, (holds M2->wait_lock,
holds B->pi_lock) holds A->pi_lock)
[7]
waiter_update_prio();
...
[8]
raw_spin_unlock(B->pi_lock);
...
[10]
raw_spin_lock(A->pi_lock);
[11]
rt_mutex_enqueue_pi();
// observes inconsistent A->pi_waiters
// tree order
Fixing this means either extending the range of the owner lock from
[10-13] to [6-13], with the immediate problem that this means [6-8]
hold both blocked and owner locks, or duplicating the sort key.
Since the locking in chain walk is horrible enough without having to
consider pi_lock nesting rules, duplicate the sort key instead.
By giving each tree their own sort key, the above race becomes
harmless, if C sees B at the old location, then B will correct things
(if they need correcting) when it walks up the chain and reaches A.
Fixes: fb00aca47440 ("rtmutex: Turn the plist into an rb-tree")
Reported-by: Henry Wu <triangletrap12@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Tested-by: Henry Wu <triangletrap12@gmail.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230707161052.GF2883469%40hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
2023-07-07 14:19:09 +00:00
|
|
|
* @tree: node to enqueue into the mutex waiters tree
|
|
|
|
* @pi_tree: node to enqueue into the mutex owner waiters tree
|
2006-06-27 09:54:53 +00:00
|
|
|
* @task: task reference to the blocked task
|
2021-03-26 15:29:37 +00:00
|
|
|
* @lock: Pointer to the rt_mutex on which the waiter blocks
|
2021-08-15 21:28:06 +00:00
|
|
|
* @wake_state: Wakeup state to use (TASK_NORMAL or TASK_RTLOCK_WAIT)
|
2021-08-15 21:28:58 +00:00
|
|
|
* @ww_ctx: WW context pointer
|
locking/rtmutex: Fix task->pi_waiters integrity
Henry reported that rt_mutex_adjust_prio_check() has an ordering
problem and puts the lie to the comment in [7]. Sharing the sort key
between lock->waiters and owner->pi_waiters *does* create problems,
since unlike what the comment claims, holding [L] is insufficient.
Notably, consider:
A
/ \
M1 M2
| |
B C
That is, task A owns both M1 and M2, B and C block on them. In this
case a concurrent chain walk (B & C) will modify their resp. sort keys
in [7] while holding M1->wait_lock and M2->wait_lock. So holding [L]
is meaningless, they're different Ls.
This then gives rise to a race condition between [7] and [11], where
the requeue of pi_waiters will observe an inconsistent tree order.
B C
(holds M1->wait_lock, (holds M2->wait_lock,
holds B->pi_lock) holds A->pi_lock)
[7]
waiter_update_prio();
...
[8]
raw_spin_unlock(B->pi_lock);
...
[10]
raw_spin_lock(A->pi_lock);
[11]
rt_mutex_enqueue_pi();
// observes inconsistent A->pi_waiters
// tree order
Fixing this means either extending the range of the owner lock from
[10-13] to [6-13], with the immediate problem that this means [6-8]
hold both blocked and owner locks, or duplicating the sort key.
Since the locking in chain walk is horrible enough without having to
consider pi_lock nesting rules, duplicate the sort key instead.
By giving each tree their own sort key, the above race becomes
harmless, if C sees B at the old location, then B will correct things
(if they need correcting) when it walks up the chain and reaches A.
Fixes: fb00aca47440 ("rtmutex: Turn the plist into an rb-tree")
Reported-by: Henry Wu <triangletrap12@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Tested-by: Henry Wu <triangletrap12@gmail.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230707161052.GF2883469%40hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
2023-07-07 14:19:09 +00:00
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* @tree is ordered by @lock->wait_lock
|
|
|
|
* @pi_tree is ordered by rt_mutex_owner(@lock)->pi_lock
|
2006-06-27 09:54:53 +00:00
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
struct rt_mutex_waiter {
|
locking/rtmutex: Fix task->pi_waiters integrity
Henry reported that rt_mutex_adjust_prio_check() has an ordering
problem and puts the lie to the comment in [7]. Sharing the sort key
between lock->waiters and owner->pi_waiters *does* create problems,
since unlike what the comment claims, holding [L] is insufficient.
Notably, consider:
A
/ \
M1 M2
| |
B C
That is, task A owns both M1 and M2, B and C block on them. In this
case a concurrent chain walk (B & C) will modify their resp. sort keys
in [7] while holding M1->wait_lock and M2->wait_lock. So holding [L]
is meaningless, they're different Ls.
This then gives rise to a race condition between [7] and [11], where
the requeue of pi_waiters will observe an inconsistent tree order.
B C
(holds M1->wait_lock, (holds M2->wait_lock,
holds B->pi_lock) holds A->pi_lock)
[7]
waiter_update_prio();
...
[8]
raw_spin_unlock(B->pi_lock);
...
[10]
raw_spin_lock(A->pi_lock);
[11]
rt_mutex_enqueue_pi();
// observes inconsistent A->pi_waiters
// tree order
Fixing this means either extending the range of the owner lock from
[10-13] to [6-13], with the immediate problem that this means [6-8]
hold both blocked and owner locks, or duplicating the sort key.
Since the locking in chain walk is horrible enough without having to
consider pi_lock nesting rules, duplicate the sort key instead.
By giving each tree their own sort key, the above race becomes
harmless, if C sees B at the old location, then B will correct things
(if they need correcting) when it walks up the chain and reaches A.
Fixes: fb00aca47440 ("rtmutex: Turn the plist into an rb-tree")
Reported-by: Henry Wu <triangletrap12@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Tested-by: Henry Wu <triangletrap12@gmail.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230707161052.GF2883469%40hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
2023-07-07 14:19:09 +00:00
|
|
|
struct rt_waiter_node tree;
|
|
|
|
struct rt_waiter_node pi_tree;
|
2006-06-27 09:54:53 +00:00
|
|
|
struct task_struct *task;
|
2021-08-15 21:27:58 +00:00
|
|
|
struct rt_mutex_base *lock;
|
2021-08-15 21:28:06 +00:00
|
|
|
unsigned int wake_state;
|
2021-08-15 21:28:58 +00:00
|
|
|
struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx;
|
2006-06-27 09:54:53 +00:00
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
2021-08-15 21:28:08 +00:00
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
* rt_wake_q_head - Wrapper around regular wake_q_head to support
|
|
|
|
* "sleeping" spinlocks on RT
|
2021-08-15 21:28:11 +00:00
|
|
|
* @head: The regular wake_q_head for sleeping lock variants
|
|
|
|
* @rtlock_task: Task pointer for RT lock (spin/rwlock) wakeups
|
2021-08-15 21:28:08 +00:00
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
struct rt_wake_q_head {
|
|
|
|
struct wake_q_head head;
|
2021-08-15 21:28:11 +00:00
|
|
|
struct task_struct *rtlock_task;
|
2021-08-15 21:28:08 +00:00
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#define DEFINE_RT_WAKE_Q(name) \
|
|
|
|
struct rt_wake_q_head name = { \
|
|
|
|
.head = WAKE_Q_HEAD_INITIALIZER(name.head), \
|
2021-08-15 21:28:11 +00:00
|
|
|
.rtlock_task = NULL, \
|
2021-08-15 21:28:08 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2021-08-15 21:27:57 +00:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* PI-futex support (proxy locking functions, etc.):
|
|
|
|
*/
|
2021-08-15 21:27:58 +00:00
|
|
|
extern void rt_mutex_init_proxy_locked(struct rt_mutex_base *lock,
|
2021-08-15 21:27:57 +00:00
|
|
|
struct task_struct *proxy_owner);
|
2021-08-15 21:27:58 +00:00
|
|
|
extern void rt_mutex_proxy_unlock(struct rt_mutex_base *lock);
|
|
|
|
extern int __rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex_base *lock,
|
2021-08-15 21:27:57 +00:00
|
|
|
struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter,
|
|
|
|
struct task_struct *task);
|
2021-08-15 21:27:58 +00:00
|
|
|
extern int rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex_base *lock,
|
2021-08-15 21:27:57 +00:00
|
|
|
struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter,
|
|
|
|
struct task_struct *task);
|
2021-08-15 21:27:58 +00:00
|
|
|
extern int rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex_base *lock,
|
2021-08-15 21:27:57 +00:00
|
|
|
struct hrtimer_sleeper *to,
|
|
|
|
struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter);
|
2021-08-15 21:27:58 +00:00
|
|
|
extern bool rt_mutex_cleanup_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex_base *lock,
|
2021-08-15 21:27:57 +00:00
|
|
|
struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter);
|
|
|
|
|
2021-08-15 21:27:58 +00:00
|
|
|
extern int rt_mutex_futex_trylock(struct rt_mutex_base *l);
|
|
|
|
extern int __rt_mutex_futex_trylock(struct rt_mutex_base *l);
|
2021-08-15 21:27:57 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2021-08-15 21:27:58 +00:00
|
|
|
extern void rt_mutex_futex_unlock(struct rt_mutex_base *lock);
|
|
|
|
extern bool __rt_mutex_futex_unlock(struct rt_mutex_base *lock,
|
2021-08-15 21:28:09 +00:00
|
|
|
struct rt_wake_q_head *wqh);
|
2021-08-15 21:27:57 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2021-08-15 21:28:09 +00:00
|
|
|
extern void rt_mutex_postunlock(struct rt_wake_q_head *wqh);
|
2021-08-15 21:27:57 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2006-06-27 09:54:53 +00:00
|
|
|
/*
|
2021-03-26 15:29:37 +00:00
|
|
|
* Must be guarded because this header is included from rcu/tree_plugin.h
|
|
|
|
* unconditionally.
|
2006-06-27 09:54:53 +00:00
|
|
|
*/
|
2017-08-01 04:31:32 +00:00
|
|
|
#ifdef CONFIG_RT_MUTEXES
|
2021-08-15 21:27:58 +00:00
|
|
|
static inline int rt_mutex_has_waiters(struct rt_mutex_base *lock)
|
2006-06-27 09:54:53 +00:00
|
|
|
{
|
2017-09-08 23:15:01 +00:00
|
|
|
return !RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&lock->waiters.rb_root);
|
2006-06-27 09:54:53 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2021-08-25 10:33:12 +00:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* Lockless speculative check whether @waiter is still the top waiter on
|
|
|
|
* @lock. This is solely comparing pointers and not derefencing the
|
|
|
|
* leftmost entry which might be about to vanish.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
static inline bool rt_mutex_waiter_is_top_waiter(struct rt_mutex_base *lock,
|
|
|
|
struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
struct rb_node *leftmost = rb_first_cached(&lock->waiters);
|
|
|
|
|
locking/rtmutex: Fix task->pi_waiters integrity
Henry reported that rt_mutex_adjust_prio_check() has an ordering
problem and puts the lie to the comment in [7]. Sharing the sort key
between lock->waiters and owner->pi_waiters *does* create problems,
since unlike what the comment claims, holding [L] is insufficient.
Notably, consider:
A
/ \
M1 M2
| |
B C
That is, task A owns both M1 and M2, B and C block on them. In this
case a concurrent chain walk (B & C) will modify their resp. sort keys
in [7] while holding M1->wait_lock and M2->wait_lock. So holding [L]
is meaningless, they're different Ls.
This then gives rise to a race condition between [7] and [11], where
the requeue of pi_waiters will observe an inconsistent tree order.
B C
(holds M1->wait_lock, (holds M2->wait_lock,
holds B->pi_lock) holds A->pi_lock)
[7]
waiter_update_prio();
...
[8]
raw_spin_unlock(B->pi_lock);
...
[10]
raw_spin_lock(A->pi_lock);
[11]
rt_mutex_enqueue_pi();
// observes inconsistent A->pi_waiters
// tree order
Fixing this means either extending the range of the owner lock from
[10-13] to [6-13], with the immediate problem that this means [6-8]
hold both blocked and owner locks, or duplicating the sort key.
Since the locking in chain walk is horrible enough without having to
consider pi_lock nesting rules, duplicate the sort key instead.
By giving each tree their own sort key, the above race becomes
harmless, if C sees B at the old location, then B will correct things
(if they need correcting) when it walks up the chain and reaches A.
Fixes: fb00aca47440 ("rtmutex: Turn the plist into an rb-tree")
Reported-by: Henry Wu <triangletrap12@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Tested-by: Henry Wu <triangletrap12@gmail.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230707161052.GF2883469%40hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
2023-07-07 14:19:09 +00:00
|
|
|
return rb_entry(leftmost, struct rt_mutex_waiter, tree.entry) == waiter;
|
2021-08-25 10:33:12 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2021-08-15 21:27:58 +00:00
|
|
|
static inline struct rt_mutex_waiter *rt_mutex_top_waiter(struct rt_mutex_base *lock)
|
2006-06-27 09:54:53 +00:00
|
|
|
{
|
2018-03-27 12:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
struct rb_node *leftmost = rb_first_cached(&lock->waiters);
|
|
|
|
struct rt_mutex_waiter *w = NULL;
|
2006-06-27 09:54:53 +00:00
|
|
|
|
locking/rtmutex: Fix task->pi_waiters integrity
Henry reported that rt_mutex_adjust_prio_check() has an ordering
problem and puts the lie to the comment in [7]. Sharing the sort key
between lock->waiters and owner->pi_waiters *does* create problems,
since unlike what the comment claims, holding [L] is insufficient.
Notably, consider:
A
/ \
M1 M2
| |
B C
That is, task A owns both M1 and M2, B and C block on them. In this
case a concurrent chain walk (B & C) will modify their resp. sort keys
in [7] while holding M1->wait_lock and M2->wait_lock. So holding [L]
is meaningless, they're different Ls.
This then gives rise to a race condition between [7] and [11], where
the requeue of pi_waiters will observe an inconsistent tree order.
B C
(holds M1->wait_lock, (holds M2->wait_lock,
holds B->pi_lock) holds A->pi_lock)
[7]
waiter_update_prio();
...
[8]
raw_spin_unlock(B->pi_lock);
...
[10]
raw_spin_lock(A->pi_lock);
[11]
rt_mutex_enqueue_pi();
// observes inconsistent A->pi_waiters
// tree order
Fixing this means either extending the range of the owner lock from
[10-13] to [6-13], with the immediate problem that this means [6-8]
hold both blocked and owner locks, or duplicating the sort key.
Since the locking in chain walk is horrible enough without having to
consider pi_lock nesting rules, duplicate the sort key instead.
By giving each tree their own sort key, the above race becomes
harmless, if C sees B at the old location, then B will correct things
(if they need correcting) when it walks up the chain and reaches A.
Fixes: fb00aca47440 ("rtmutex: Turn the plist into an rb-tree")
Reported-by: Henry Wu <triangletrap12@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Tested-by: Henry Wu <triangletrap12@gmail.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230707161052.GF2883469%40hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
2023-07-07 14:19:09 +00:00
|
|
|
lockdep_assert_held(&lock->wait_lock);
|
|
|
|
|
2018-03-27 12:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
if (leftmost) {
|
locking/rtmutex: Fix task->pi_waiters integrity
Henry reported that rt_mutex_adjust_prio_check() has an ordering
problem and puts the lie to the comment in [7]. Sharing the sort key
between lock->waiters and owner->pi_waiters *does* create problems,
since unlike what the comment claims, holding [L] is insufficient.
Notably, consider:
A
/ \
M1 M2
| |
B C
That is, task A owns both M1 and M2, B and C block on them. In this
case a concurrent chain walk (B & C) will modify their resp. sort keys
in [7] while holding M1->wait_lock and M2->wait_lock. So holding [L]
is meaningless, they're different Ls.
This then gives rise to a race condition between [7] and [11], where
the requeue of pi_waiters will observe an inconsistent tree order.
B C
(holds M1->wait_lock, (holds M2->wait_lock,
holds B->pi_lock) holds A->pi_lock)
[7]
waiter_update_prio();
...
[8]
raw_spin_unlock(B->pi_lock);
...
[10]
raw_spin_lock(A->pi_lock);
[11]
rt_mutex_enqueue_pi();
// observes inconsistent A->pi_waiters
// tree order
Fixing this means either extending the range of the owner lock from
[10-13] to [6-13], with the immediate problem that this means [6-8]
hold both blocked and owner locks, or duplicating the sort key.
Since the locking in chain walk is horrible enough without having to
consider pi_lock nesting rules, duplicate the sort key instead.
By giving each tree their own sort key, the above race becomes
harmless, if C sees B at the old location, then B will correct things
(if they need correcting) when it walks up the chain and reaches A.
Fixes: fb00aca47440 ("rtmutex: Turn the plist into an rb-tree")
Reported-by: Henry Wu <triangletrap12@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Tested-by: Henry Wu <triangletrap12@gmail.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230707161052.GF2883469%40hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
2023-07-07 14:19:09 +00:00
|
|
|
w = rb_entry(leftmost, struct rt_mutex_waiter, tree.entry);
|
2018-03-27 12:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
BUG_ON(w->lock != lock);
|
|
|
|
}
|
2006-06-27 09:54:53 +00:00
|
|
|
return w;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
static inline int task_has_pi_waiters(struct task_struct *p)
|
|
|
|
{
|
2017-09-08 23:15:01 +00:00
|
|
|
return !RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&p->pi_waiters.rb_root);
|
2006-06-27 09:54:53 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2021-03-26 15:29:37 +00:00
|
|
|
static inline struct rt_mutex_waiter *task_top_pi_waiter(struct task_struct *p)
|
2017-08-01 04:31:32 +00:00
|
|
|
{
|
locking/rtmutex: Fix task->pi_waiters integrity
Henry reported that rt_mutex_adjust_prio_check() has an ordering
problem and puts the lie to the comment in [7]. Sharing the sort key
between lock->waiters and owner->pi_waiters *does* create problems,
since unlike what the comment claims, holding [L] is insufficient.
Notably, consider:
A
/ \
M1 M2
| |
B C
That is, task A owns both M1 and M2, B and C block on them. In this
case a concurrent chain walk (B & C) will modify their resp. sort keys
in [7] while holding M1->wait_lock and M2->wait_lock. So holding [L]
is meaningless, they're different Ls.
This then gives rise to a race condition between [7] and [11], where
the requeue of pi_waiters will observe an inconsistent tree order.
B C
(holds M1->wait_lock, (holds M2->wait_lock,
holds B->pi_lock) holds A->pi_lock)
[7]
waiter_update_prio();
...
[8]
raw_spin_unlock(B->pi_lock);
...
[10]
raw_spin_lock(A->pi_lock);
[11]
rt_mutex_enqueue_pi();
// observes inconsistent A->pi_waiters
// tree order
Fixing this means either extending the range of the owner lock from
[10-13] to [6-13], with the immediate problem that this means [6-8]
hold both blocked and owner locks, or duplicating the sort key.
Since the locking in chain walk is horrible enough without having to
consider pi_lock nesting rules, duplicate the sort key instead.
By giving each tree their own sort key, the above race becomes
harmless, if C sees B at the old location, then B will correct things
(if they need correcting) when it walks up the chain and reaches A.
Fixes: fb00aca47440 ("rtmutex: Turn the plist into an rb-tree")
Reported-by: Henry Wu <triangletrap12@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Tested-by: Henry Wu <triangletrap12@gmail.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230707161052.GF2883469%40hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
2023-07-07 14:19:09 +00:00
|
|
|
lockdep_assert_held(&p->pi_lock);
|
|
|
|
|
2021-03-26 15:29:37 +00:00
|
|
|
return rb_entry(p->pi_waiters.rb_leftmost, struct rt_mutex_waiter,
|
locking/rtmutex: Fix task->pi_waiters integrity
Henry reported that rt_mutex_adjust_prio_check() has an ordering
problem and puts the lie to the comment in [7]. Sharing the sort key
between lock->waiters and owner->pi_waiters *does* create problems,
since unlike what the comment claims, holding [L] is insufficient.
Notably, consider:
A
/ \
M1 M2
| |
B C
That is, task A owns both M1 and M2, B and C block on them. In this
case a concurrent chain walk (B & C) will modify their resp. sort keys
in [7] while holding M1->wait_lock and M2->wait_lock. So holding [L]
is meaningless, they're different Ls.
This then gives rise to a race condition between [7] and [11], where
the requeue of pi_waiters will observe an inconsistent tree order.
B C
(holds M1->wait_lock, (holds M2->wait_lock,
holds B->pi_lock) holds A->pi_lock)
[7]
waiter_update_prio();
...
[8]
raw_spin_unlock(B->pi_lock);
...
[10]
raw_spin_lock(A->pi_lock);
[11]
rt_mutex_enqueue_pi();
// observes inconsistent A->pi_waiters
// tree order
Fixing this means either extending the range of the owner lock from
[10-13] to [6-13], with the immediate problem that this means [6-8]
hold both blocked and owner locks, or duplicating the sort key.
Since the locking in chain walk is horrible enough without having to
consider pi_lock nesting rules, duplicate the sort key instead.
By giving each tree their own sort key, the above race becomes
harmless, if C sees B at the old location, then B will correct things
(if they need correcting) when it walks up the chain and reaches A.
Fixes: fb00aca47440 ("rtmutex: Turn the plist into an rb-tree")
Reported-by: Henry Wu <triangletrap12@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Tested-by: Henry Wu <triangletrap12@gmail.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230707161052.GF2883469%40hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
2023-07-07 14:19:09 +00:00
|
|
|
pi_tree.entry);
|
2017-08-01 04:31:32 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
rtmutex: Simplify PI algorithm and make highest prio task get lock
In current rtmutex, the pending owner may be boosted by the tasks
in the rtmutex's waitlist when the pending owner is deboosted
or a task in the waitlist is boosted. This boosting is unrelated,
because the pending owner does not really take the rtmutex.
It is not reasonable.
Example.
time1:
A(high prio) onwers the rtmutex.
B(mid prio) and C (low prio) in the waitlist.
time2
A release the lock, B becomes the pending owner
A(or other high prio task) continues to run. B's prio is lower
than A, so B is just queued at the runqueue.
time3
A or other high prio task sleeps, but we have passed some time
The B and C's prio are changed in the period (time2 ~ time3)
due to boosting or deboosting. Now C has the priority higher
than B. ***Is it reasonable that C has to boost B and help B to
get the rtmutex?
NO!! I think, it is unrelated/unneed boosting before B really
owns the rtmutex. We should give C a chance to beat B and
win the rtmutex.
This is the motivation of this patch. This patch *ensures*
only the top waiter or higher priority task can take the lock.
How?
1) we don't dequeue the top waiter when unlock, if the top waiter
is changed, the old top waiter will fail and go to sleep again.
2) when requiring lock, it will get the lock when the lock is not taken and:
there is no waiter OR higher priority than waiters OR it is top waiter.
3) In any time, the top waiter is changed, the top waiter will be woken up.
The algorithm is much simpler than before, no pending owner, no
boosting for pending owner.
Other advantage of this patch:
1) The states of a rtmutex are reduced a half, easier to read the code.
2) the codes become shorter.
3) top waiter is not dequeued until it really take the lock:
they will retain FIFO when it is stolen.
Not advantage nor disadvantage
1) Even we may wakeup multiple waiters(any time when top waiter changed),
we hardly cause "thundering herd",
the number of wokenup task is likely 1 or very little.
2) two APIs are changed.
rt_mutex_owner() will not return pending owner, it will return NULL when
the top waiter is going to take the lock.
rt_mutex_next_owner() always return the top waiter.
will not return NULL if we have waiters
because the top waiter is not dequeued.
I have fixed the code that use these APIs.
need updated after this patch is accepted
1) Document/*
2) the testcase scripts/rt-tester/t4-l2-pi-deboost.tst
Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
LKML-Reference: <4D3012D5.4060709@cn.fujitsu.com>
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
2011-01-14 09:09:41 +00:00
|
|
|
#define RT_MUTEX_HAS_WAITERS 1UL
|
2006-06-27 09:54:53 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2021-08-15 21:27:58 +00:00
|
|
|
static inline struct task_struct *rt_mutex_owner(struct rt_mutex_base *lock)
|
2006-06-27 09:54:53 +00:00
|
|
|
{
|
2016-11-30 21:04:42 +00:00
|
|
|
unsigned long owner = (unsigned long) READ_ONCE(lock->owner);
|
|
|
|
|
2016-11-30 21:04:44 +00:00
|
|
|
return (struct task_struct *) (owner & ~RT_MUTEX_HAS_WAITERS);
|
2006-06-27 09:54:53 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2014-05-22 03:25:47 +00:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* Constants for rt mutex functions which have a selectable deadlock
|
|
|
|
* detection.
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* RT_MUTEX_MIN_CHAINWALK: Stops the lock chain walk when there are
|
|
|
|
* no further PI adjustments to be made.
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* RT_MUTEX_FULL_CHAINWALK: Invoke deadlock detection with a full
|
|
|
|
* walk of the lock chain.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
enum rtmutex_chainwalk {
|
|
|
|
RT_MUTEX_MIN_CHAINWALK,
|
|
|
|
RT_MUTEX_FULL_CHAINWALK,
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
2021-08-15 21:27:58 +00:00
|
|
|
static inline void __rt_mutex_base_init(struct rt_mutex_base *lock)
|
2021-03-26 15:29:38 +00:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
raw_spin_lock_init(&lock->wait_lock);
|
|
|
|
lock->waiters = RB_ROOT_CACHED;
|
2021-08-15 21:27:58 +00:00
|
|
|
lock->owner = NULL;
|
2021-03-26 15:29:38 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2021-03-26 15:29:39 +00:00
|
|
|
/* Debug functions */
|
2021-08-15 21:27:58 +00:00
|
|
|
static inline void debug_rt_mutex_unlock(struct rt_mutex_base *lock)
|
2021-03-26 15:29:39 +00:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_RT_MUTEXES))
|
|
|
|
DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(rt_mutex_owner(lock) != current);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2021-08-15 21:27:58 +00:00
|
|
|
static inline void debug_rt_mutex_proxy_unlock(struct rt_mutex_base *lock)
|
2021-03-26 15:29:39 +00:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_RT_MUTEXES))
|
|
|
|
DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(!rt_mutex_owner(lock));
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
static inline void debug_rt_mutex_init_waiter(struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_RT_MUTEXES))
|
|
|
|
memset(waiter, 0x11, sizeof(*waiter));
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
static inline void debug_rt_mutex_free_waiter(struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_RT_MUTEXES))
|
|
|
|
memset(waiter, 0x22, sizeof(*waiter));
|
|
|
|
}
|
2007-07-16 06:41:20 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2021-08-15 21:27:57 +00:00
|
|
|
static inline void rt_mutex_init_waiter(struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
debug_rt_mutex_init_waiter(waiter);
|
locking/rtmutex: Fix task->pi_waiters integrity
Henry reported that rt_mutex_adjust_prio_check() has an ordering
problem and puts the lie to the comment in [7]. Sharing the sort key
between lock->waiters and owner->pi_waiters *does* create problems,
since unlike what the comment claims, holding [L] is insufficient.
Notably, consider:
A
/ \
M1 M2
| |
B C
That is, task A owns both M1 and M2, B and C block on them. In this
case a concurrent chain walk (B & C) will modify their resp. sort keys
in [7] while holding M1->wait_lock and M2->wait_lock. So holding [L]
is meaningless, they're different Ls.
This then gives rise to a race condition between [7] and [11], where
the requeue of pi_waiters will observe an inconsistent tree order.
B C
(holds M1->wait_lock, (holds M2->wait_lock,
holds B->pi_lock) holds A->pi_lock)
[7]
waiter_update_prio();
...
[8]
raw_spin_unlock(B->pi_lock);
...
[10]
raw_spin_lock(A->pi_lock);
[11]
rt_mutex_enqueue_pi();
// observes inconsistent A->pi_waiters
// tree order
Fixing this means either extending the range of the owner lock from
[10-13] to [6-13], with the immediate problem that this means [6-8]
hold both blocked and owner locks, or duplicating the sort key.
Since the locking in chain walk is horrible enough without having to
consider pi_lock nesting rules, duplicate the sort key instead.
By giving each tree their own sort key, the above race becomes
harmless, if C sees B at the old location, then B will correct things
(if they need correcting) when it walks up the chain and reaches A.
Fixes: fb00aca47440 ("rtmutex: Turn the plist into an rb-tree")
Reported-by: Henry Wu <triangletrap12@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Tested-by: Henry Wu <triangletrap12@gmail.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230707161052.GF2883469%40hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
2023-07-07 14:19:09 +00:00
|
|
|
RB_CLEAR_NODE(&waiter->pi_tree.entry);
|
|
|
|
RB_CLEAR_NODE(&waiter->tree.entry);
|
2021-08-15 21:28:06 +00:00
|
|
|
waiter->wake_state = TASK_NORMAL;
|
2021-08-15 21:27:57 +00:00
|
|
|
waiter->task = NULL;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2021-08-15 21:28:25 +00:00
|
|
|
static inline void rt_mutex_init_rtlock_waiter(struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter)
|
2021-08-15 21:28:06 +00:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
rt_mutex_init_waiter(waiter);
|
|
|
|
waiter->wake_state = TASK_RTLOCK_WAIT;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2021-08-15 21:27:57 +00:00
|
|
|
#else /* CONFIG_RT_MUTEXES */
|
|
|
|
/* Used in rcu/tree_plugin.h */
|
2021-08-15 21:27:58 +00:00
|
|
|
static inline struct task_struct *rt_mutex_owner(struct rt_mutex_base *lock)
|
2021-08-15 21:27:57 +00:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
return NULL;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
#endif /* !CONFIG_RT_MUTEXES */
|
|
|
|
|
2006-06-27 09:54:53 +00:00
|
|
|
#endif
|