From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 20:34:02 +0000 (-0400)
Subject: Fix: urcu: futex wait: handle spurious futex wakeups
X-Git-Tag: v0.14.0~27
X-Git-Url: https://git.liburcu.org/?p=urcu.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=a18d0428065b301086d4e8a85bc057dc39946891

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 <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Change-Id: I83942e24c32e77395ff25b466f1b1640422b9eb5
---

diff --git a/src/urcu.c b/src/urcu.c
index 67c6525..59f2e8f 100644
--- a/src/urcu.c
+++ b/src/urcu.c
@@ -259,17 +259,25 @@ 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);