kpriv/linux-hardened
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity

locking/mutex: Don't assume TASK_RUNNING

Browse source 
We're going to make might_sleep() test for TASK_RUNNING, because
blocking without TASK_RUNNING will destroy the task state by setting
it to TASK_RUNNING.

There are a few occasions where its 'valid' to call blocking
primitives (and mutex_lock in particular) and not have TASK_RUNNING,
typically such cases are right before we set TASK_RUNNING anyhow.

Robustify the code by not assuming this; this has the beneficial side
effect of allowing optional code emission for fixing the above
might_sleep() false positives.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de
Cc: ilya.dryomov@inktank.com
Cc: umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140924082241.988560063@infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
This commit is contained in:
Peter Zijlstra 2014-09-24 10:18:46 +02:00 committed by Ingo Molnar
parent f4e9d94a5b
commit 6f942a1f26
1 changed files with 7 additions and 1 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

8
kernel/locking/mutex.c
View file

@ -378,8 +378,14 @@ done:
* reschedule now, before we try-lock the mutex. This avoids getting
* scheduled out right after we obtained the mutex.
*/
if (need_resched())
if (need_resched()) {
/*
* We _should_ have TASK_RUNNING here, but just in case
* we do not, make it so, otherwise we might get stuck.
*/
__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
schedule_preempt_disabled();
}
return false;
}