Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:7 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:7;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231130204817.2031407-1-jannh@google.com> <2f17a9a6-5781-43ef-a09b-f39310843fe6@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <2f17a9a6-5781-43ef-a09b-f39310843fe6@redhat.com>
From:   Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 Nov 2023 23:24:23 +0100
Message-ID: <CAG48ez1oXW=4MfQ0A6tthud-cvDZUTA+VB=jzu-HxvWzbj+X0g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking: Document that mutex_unlock() is non-atomic
To:     Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 10:53=E2=80=AFPM Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> w=
rote:
> On 11/30/23 15:48, Jann Horn wrote:
> > I have seen several cases of attempts to use mutex_unlock() to release =
an
> > object such that the object can then be freed by another task.
> > My understanding is that this is not safe because mutex_unlock(), in th=
e
> > MUTEX_FLAG_WAITERS && !MUTEX_FLAG_HANDOFF case, accesses the mutex
> > structure after having marked it as unlocked; so mutex_unlock() require=
s
> > its caller to ensure that the mutex stays alive until mutex_unlock()
> > returns.
> >
> > If MUTEX_FLAG_WAITERS is set and there are real waiters, those waiters
> > have to keep the mutex alive, I think; but we could have a spurious
> > MUTEX_FLAG_WAITERS left if an interruptible/killable waiter bailed
> > between the points where __mutex_unlock_slowpath() did the cmpxchg
> > reading the flags and where it acquired the wait_lock.
>
> Could you clarify under what condition a concurrent task can decide to
> free the object holding the mutex? Is it !mutex_is_locked() or after a
> mutex_lock()/mutex_unlock sequence?

I mean a mutex_lock()+mutex_unlock() sequence.

> mutex_is_locked() will return true if the mutex has waiter even if it
> is currently free.

I don't understand your point, and maybe I also don't understand what
you mean by "free". Isn't mutex_is_locked() defined such that it only
looks at whether a mutex has an owner, and doesn't look at the waiter
list?