After read the code again, I have addtional opinion for discussing,
please check thanks.
The related contents are at bottom.
On 09/13/2013 09:52 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
> On 09/13/2013 07:36 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> That crusade does not involve any failure analysis or test cases. It's
>> just driven by mechanically checking the code for inconsistencies. Now
>> he tripped over a non obvious return value chain in the futex code. So
>> instead of figuring out why it is coded this way, he just mechanically
>> decided that there is a missing check. Though:
>>
>> The return value is checked and it needs deep understanding of the way
>> how futexes work to grok why it's necessary to invoke fixup_owner()
>> independent of the rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock() return value.
>>
>> The code in question is:
>>
>> ret = rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock(pi_mutex, to, &rt_waiter, 1);
>>
>> spin_lock(q.lock_ptr);
>> /*
>> * Fixup the pi_state owner and possibly acquire the lock if we
>> * haven't already.
>> */
>> res = fixup_owner(uaddr2, &q, !ret);
>> /*
>> * If fixup_owner() returned an error, proprogate that. If it
>> * acquired the lock, clear -ETIMEDOUT or -EINTR.
>> */
>> if (res)
>> ret = (res < 0) ? res : 0;
>>
>> If you can understand the comments in the code and you are able to
>> follow the implementation of fixup_owner() and the usage of "!ret" as
>> an argument you really should be able to figure out, why this is
>> correct.
>>
>> I'm well aware, as you are, that this code is hard to grok. BUT:
>>
>> If this code in futex_wait_requeue_pi() is wrong why did Chen's
>> correctness checker not trigger on the following code in
>> futex_lock_pi()?:
>>
>> if (!trylock)
>> ret = rt_mutex_timed_lock(&q.pi_state->pi_mutex, to, 1);
>> else {
>> ret = rt_mutex_trylock(&q.pi_state->pi_mutex);
>> /* Fixup the trylock return value: */
>> ret = ret ? 0 : -EWOULDBLOCK;
>> }
>>
>> spin_lock(q.lock_ptr);
>> /*
>> * Fixup the pi_state owner and possibly acquire the lock if we
>> * haven't already.
>> */
>> res = fixup_owner(uaddr, &q, !ret);
>> /*
>> * If fixup_owner() returned an error, proprogate that. If it acquired
>> * the lock, clear our -ETIMEDOUT or -EINTR.
>> */
>> if (res)
>> ret = (res < 0) ? res : 0;
>>
>> It's the very same pattern and according to Chen's logic broken as
>> well.
>>
>> As I recommended to Chen to read the history of futex.c, I just can
>> recommend the same thing to you to figure out why the heck this is the
>> correct way to handle it.
>>
>> Hint: The relevant commit starts with: cdf
>>
>> The code has changed quite a bit since then, but the issue which is
>> described quite well in the commit log is still the same.
>>
>> Just for the record:
>>
>> Line 48 of futex.c says: "The futexes are also cursed."
>>
fixup_owner() can return 0 for "success, lock not taken".
If rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock() fail (ret !=0), fixup_owner() may also
return 0 (and may printk error message in it), 'ret' will still hold the
original error code, and continue.
Is that OK? (for the next checking statement "if (ret == -EFAULT)",
according to its comments near above, "if fixup_pi_state_owner() faulted
...", it seems we need skip it in our case).
Thanks.
>
> Thank you for your explanation (especially spend you expensive time
> resources on it).
>
> It is my fault:
>
> the 'ret' which return from rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock(), is used by the
> next fixup_owner().
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> tglx
>>
>>
>
--
Chen Gang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
