From: Mathieu Desnoyers Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 20:34:02 +0000 (-0400) Subject: Fix: urcu: futex wait: handle spurious futex wakeups X-Git-Tag: v0.12.4~12 X-Git-Url: https://git.lttng.org./?a=commitdiff_plain;h=1c7364b78b023245aa490007ce835a8ad530edf6;p=userspace-rcu.git Fix: urcu: futex wait: handle spurious futex wakeups Observed issue ============== The urcu wait_gp() implements a futex wait/wakeup scheme identical to the workqueue code, which has an issue with spurious wakeups. A spurious wakeup on wait_gp can cause wait_gp to return with a rcu_gp.futex state of -1, which is unexpected. It would cause the following loops in wait_for_readers() to decrement the rcu_gp.futex to values below -1, thus actively using CPU as values will be decremented to very low negative values until it reaches 0 through underflow, or until the input_readers list is found to be empty. The state is restored to 0 when the input_readers list is found to be empty, which restores the futex state to a correct state for the following calls to wait_for_readers(). This issue will cause spurious unexpected high CPU use, but will not lead to data corruption. Cause ===== From futex(5): FUTEX_WAIT Returns 0 if the caller was woken up. Note that a wake-up can also be caused by common futex usage patterns in unrelated code that happened to have previously used the futex word's memory location (e.g., typical futex-based implementations of Pthreads mutexes can cause this under some conditions). Therefore, call‐ ers should always conservatively assume that a return value of 0 can mean a spurious wake-up, and use the futex word's value (i.e., the user-space synchronization scheme) to decide whether to continue to block or not. Solution ======== We therefore need to validate whether the value differs from -1 in user-space after the call to FUTEX_WAIT returns 0. Known drawbacks =============== None. Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers Change-Id: I83942e24c32e77395ff25b466f1b1640422b9eb5 --- diff --git a/src/urcu.c b/src/urcu.c index e64432f..a8c033a 100644 --- a/src/urcu.c +++ b/src/urcu.c @@ -266,17 +266,25 @@ static void wait_gp(void) smp_mb_master(); /* Temporarily unlock the registry lock. */ mutex_unlock(&rcu_registry_lock); - if (uatomic_read(&rcu_gp.futex) != -1) - goto end; - while (futex_async(&rcu_gp.futex, FUTEX_WAIT, -1, - NULL, NULL, 0)) { + while (uatomic_read(&rcu_gp.futex) == -1) { + if (!futex_async(&rcu_gp.futex, FUTEX_WAIT, -1, NULL, NULL, 0)) { + /* + * Prior queued wakeups queued by unrelated code + * using the same address can cause futex wait to + * return 0 even through the futex value is still + * -1 (spurious wakeups). Check the value again + * in user-space to validate whether it really + * differs from -1. + */ + continue; + } switch (errno) { - case EWOULDBLOCK: + case EAGAIN: /* Value already changed. */ goto end; case EINTR: /* Retry if interrupted by signal. */ - break; /* Get out of switch. */ + break; /* Get out of switch. Check again. */ default: /* Unexpected error. */ urcu_die(errno);