locking/osq: Fix ordering of node initialisation in osq_lock

The Cavium guys reported a soft lockup on their arm64 machine, caused by
commit c55a6ffa6285 ("locking/osq: Relax atomic semantics"):

    mutex_optimistic_spin+0x9c/0x1d0
    __mutex_lock_slowpath+0x44/0x158
    mutex_lock+0x54/0x58
    kernfs_iop_permission+0x38/0x70
    __inode_permission+0x88/0xd8
    inode_permission+0x30/0x6c
    link_path_walk+0x68/0x4d4
    path_openat+0xb4/0x2bc
    do_filp_open+0x74/0xd0
    do_sys_open+0x14c/0x228
    SyS_openat+0x3c/0x48
    el0_svc_naked+0x24/0x28

This is because in osq_lock we initialise the node for the current CPU:

    node->locked = 0;
    node->next = NULL;
    node->cpu = curr;

and then publish the current CPU in the lock tail:

    old = atomic_xchg_acquire(&lock->tail, curr);

Once the update to lock->tail is visible to another CPU, the node is
then live and can be both read and updated by concurrent lockers.

Unfortunately, the ACQUIRE semantics of the xchg operation mean that
there is no guarantee the contents of the node will be visible before
lock tail is updated.  This can lead to lock corruption when, for
example, a concurrent locker races to set the next field.

Fixes: c55a6ffa6285 ("locking/osq: Relax atomic semantics"):
Reported-by: David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com>
Reported-by: Andrew Pinski <andrew.pinski@caviumnetworks.com>
Tested-by: Andrew Pinski <andrew.pinski@caviumnetworks.com>
Acked-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1449856001-21177-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>

1 files changed, 5 insertions, 3 deletions

diff --git a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
index d092a0c..05a3785 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
@@ -93,10 +93,12 @@ bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
 	node->cpu = curr;
 
 	/*
-	 * ACQUIRE semantics, pairs with corresponding RELEASE
-	 * in unlock() uncontended, or fastpath.
+	 * We need both ACQUIRE (pairs with corresponding RELEASE in
+	 * unlock() uncontended, or fastpath) and RELEASE (to publish
+	 * the node fields we just initialised) semantics when updating
+	 * the lock tail.
 	 */
-	old = atomic_xchg_acquire(&lock->tail, curr);
+	old = atomic_xchg(&lock->tail, curr);
 	if (old == OSQ_UNLOCKED_VAL)
 		return true;