From: Thomas Gleixner <t...@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 <t...@linutronix.de>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <pet...@infradead.org>
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org>
[Lee: Back-ported in support of a previous futex attempt]
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jo...@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org>
---
 kernel/futex.c |   24 ++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

--- a/kernel/futex.c
+++ b/kernel/futex.c
@@ -2322,7 +2322,7 @@ 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;
                }
 
@@ -2364,7 +2364,7 @@ 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
@@ -2447,8 +2447,6 @@ static long futex_wait_restart(struct re
  */
 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
@@ -2459,8 +2457,8 @@ static int fixup_owner(u32 __user *uaddr
                 * 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;
        }
 
        /*
@@ -2471,10 +2469,8 @@ static int fixup_owner(u32 __user *uaddr
         * 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
@@ -2483,8 +2479,7 @@ static int fixup_owner(u32 __user *uaddr
        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;
 }
 
 /**
@@ -3106,6 +3101,11 @@ static int futex_wait_requeue_pi(u32 __u
                         */
                        put_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;


Reply via email to