Add compiler barriers around modifications of the robust mutex list.

Any changes to the per-thread list of robust mutexes currently acquired as
well as the pending-operations entry are not simply sequential code but
basically concurrent with any actions taken by the kernel when it tries
to clean up after a crash.  This is not quite like multi-thread concurrency
but more like signal-handler concurrency.
This patch fixes latent bugs by adding compiler barriers where necessary so
that it is ensured that the kernel crash handling sees consistent data.

This is meant to be easy to backport, so we do not use C11-style signal
fences yet.

	* nptl/descr.h (ENQUEUE_MUTEX_BOTH, DEQUEUE_MUTEX): Add compiler
	barriers and comments.
	* nptl/pthread_mutex_lock.c (__pthread_mutex_lock_full): Likewise.
	* nptl/pthread_mutex_timedlock.c (pthread_mutex_timedlock): Likewise.
	* nptl/pthread_mutex_unlock.c (__pthread_mutex_unlock_full): Likewise.

5 files changed, 133 insertions, 9 deletions

diff --git a/ChangeLog b/ChangeLog
index b4defdbda2..52ad8d8650 100644
--- a/ChangeLog
+++ b/ChangeLog
@@ -1,5 +1,13 @@
 2016-01-13  Torvald Riegel  <triegel@redhat.com>
 
+	* nptl/descr.h (ENQUEUE_MUTEX_BOTH, DEQUEUE_MUTEX): Add compiler
+	barriers and comments.
+	* nptl/pthread_mutex_lock.c (__pthread_mutex_lock_full): Likewise.
+	* nptl/pthread_mutex_timedlock.c (pthread_mutex_timedlock): Likewise.
+	* nptl/pthread_mutex_unlock.c (__pthread_mutex_unlock_full): Likewise.
+
+2016-01-13  Torvald Riegel  <triegel@redhat.com>
+
 	[BZ #19402]
 	* sysdeps/nptl/fork.c (__libc_fork): Clear list of acquired robust
 	mutexes.
diff --git a/nptl/descr.h b/nptl/descr.h
index 7a6a94fe15..a145860f07 100644
--- a/nptl/descr.h
+++ b/nptl/descr.h
@@ -179,7 +179,16 @@ struct pthread
      but the pointer to the next/previous element of the list points
      in the middle of the object, the __next element.  Whenever
      casting to __pthread_list_t we need to adjust the pointer
-     first.  */
+     first.
+     These operations are effectively concurrent code in that the thread
+     can get killed at any point in time and the kernel takes over.  Thus,
+     the __next elements are a kind of concurrent list and we need to
+     enforce using compiler barriers that the individual operations happen
+     in such a way that the kernel always sees a consistent list.  The
+     backward links (ie, the __prev elements) are not used by the kernel.
+     FIXME We should use relaxed MO atomic operations here and signal fences
+     because this kind of concurrency is similar to synchronizing with a
+     signal handler.  */
 # define QUEUE_PTR_ADJUST (offsetof (__pthread_list_t, __next))
 
 # define ENQUEUE_MUTEX_BOTH(mutex, val)					      \
@@ -191,6 +200,8 @@ struct pthread
     mutex->__data.__list.__next = THREAD_GETMEM (THREAD_SELF,		      \
 						 robust_head.list);	      \
     mutex->__data.__list.__prev = (void *) &THREAD_SELF->robust_head;	      \
+    /* Ensure that the new list entry is ready before we insert it.  */	      \
+    __asm ("" ::: "memory");						      \
     THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list,			      \
 		   (void *) (((uintptr_t) &mutex->__data.__list.__next)	      \
 			     | val));					      \
@@ -205,6 +216,9 @@ struct pthread
       ((char *) (((uintptr_t) mutex->__data.__list.__prev) & ~1ul)	      \
        - QUEUE_PTR_ADJUST);						      \
     prev->__next = mutex->__data.__list.__next;				      \
+    /* Ensure that we remove the entry from the list before we change the     \
+       __next pointer of the entry, which is read by the kernel.  */	      \
+    __asm ("" ::: "memory");						      \
     mutex->__data.__list.__prev = NULL;					      \
     mutex->__data.__list.__next = NULL;					      \
   } while (0)
@@ -219,6 +233,8 @@ struct pthread
   do {									      \
     mutex->__data.__list.__next						      \
       = THREAD_GETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_list.__next);		      \
+    /* Ensure that the new list entry is ready before we insert it.  */	      \
+    __asm ("" ::: "memory");						      \
     THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_list.__next,			      \
 		   (void *) (((uintptr_t) &mutex->__data.__list) | val));     \
   } while (0)
@@ -239,6 +255,9 @@ struct pthread
 	  }								      \
 									      \
 	runp->__next = next->__next;					      \
+	/* Ensure that we remove the entry from the list before we change the \
+	   __next pointer of the entry, which is read by the kernel.  */      \
+	    __asm ("" ::: "memory");					      \
 	mutex->__data.__list.__next = NULL;				      \
       }									      \
   } while (0)
diff --git a/nptl/pthread_mutex_lock.c b/nptl/pthread_mutex_lock.c
index 9b81f88a9f..dc9ca4c476 100644
--- a/nptl/pthread_mutex_lock.c
+++ b/nptl/pthread_mutex_lock.c
@@ -180,6 +180,9 @@ __pthread_mutex_lock_full (pthread_mutex_t *mutex)
     case PTHREAD_MUTEX_ROBUST_ADAPTIVE_NP:
       THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending,
 		     &mutex->__data.__list.__next);
+      /* We need to set op_pending before starting the operation.  Also
+	 see comments at ENQUEUE_MUTEX.  */
+      __asm ("" ::: "memory");
 
       oldval = mutex->__data.__lock;
       /* This is set to FUTEX_WAITERS iff we might have shared the
@@ -227,7 +230,12 @@ __pthread_mutex_lock_full (pthread_mutex_t *mutex)
 	      /* But it is inconsistent unless marked otherwise.  */
 	      mutex->__data.__owner = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INCONSISTENT;
 
+	      /* We must not enqueue the mutex before we have acquired it.
+		 Also see comments at ENQUEUE_MUTEX.  */
+	      __asm ("" ::: "memory");
 	      ENQUEUE_MUTEX (mutex);
+	      /* We need to clear op_pending after we enqueue the mutex.  */
+	      __asm ("" ::: "memory");
 	      THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending, NULL);
 
 	      /* Note that we deliberately exit here.  If we fall
@@ -249,6 +257,8 @@ __pthread_mutex_lock_full (pthread_mutex_t *mutex)
 	      int kind = PTHREAD_MUTEX_TYPE (mutex);
 	      if (kind == PTHREAD_MUTEX_ROBUST_ERRORCHECK_NP)
 		{
+		  /* We do not need to ensure ordering wrt another memory
+		     access.  Also see comments at ENQUEUE_MUTEX. */
 		  THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending,
 				 NULL);
 		  return EDEADLK;
@@ -256,6 +266,8 @@ __pthread_mutex_lock_full (pthread_mutex_t *mutex)
 
 	      if (kind == PTHREAD_MUTEX_ROBUST_RECURSIVE_NP)
 		{
+		  /* We do not need to ensure ordering wrt another memory
+		     access.  */
 		  THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending,
 				 NULL);
 
@@ -308,12 +320,19 @@ __pthread_mutex_lock_full (pthread_mutex_t *mutex)
 	  mutex->__data.__count = 0;
 	  int private = PTHREAD_ROBUST_MUTEX_PSHARED (mutex);
 	  lll_unlock (mutex->__data.__lock, private);
+	  /* FIXME This violates the mutex destruction requirements.  See
+	     __pthread_mutex_unlock_full.  */
 	  THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending, NULL);
 	  return ENOTRECOVERABLE;
 	}
 
       mutex->__data.__count = 1;
+      /* We must not enqueue the mutex before we have acquired it.
+	 Also see comments at ENQUEUE_MUTEX.  */
+      __asm ("" ::: "memory");
       ENQUEUE_MUTEX (mutex);
+      /* We need to clear op_pending after we enqueue the mutex.  */
+      __asm ("" ::: "memory");
       THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending, NULL);
       break;
 
@@ -334,10 +353,15 @@ __pthread_mutex_lock_full (pthread_mutex_t *mutex)
 	int robust = mutex->__data.__kind & PTHREAD_MUTEX_ROBUST_NORMAL_NP;
 
 	if (robust)
-	  /* Note: robust PI futexes are signaled by setting bit 0.  */
-	  THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending,
-			 (void *) (((uintptr_t) &mutex->__data.__list.__next)
-				   | 1));
+	  {
+	    /* Note: robust PI futexes are signaled by setting bit 0.  */
+	    THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending,
+			   (void *) (((uintptr_t) &mutex->__data.__list.__next)
+				     | 1));
+	    /* We need to set op_pending before starting the operation.  Also
+	       see comments at ENQUEUE_MUTEX.  */
+	    __asm ("" ::: "memory");
+	  }
 
 	oldval = mutex->__data.__lock;
 
@@ -346,12 +370,16 @@ __pthread_mutex_lock_full (pthread_mutex_t *mutex)
 	  {
 	    if (kind == PTHREAD_MUTEX_ERRORCHECK_NP)
 	      {
+		/* We do not need to ensure ordering wrt another memory
+		   access.  */
 		THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending, NULL);
 		return EDEADLK;
 	      }
 
 	    if (kind == PTHREAD_MUTEX_RECURSIVE_NP)
 	      {
+		/* We do not need to ensure ordering wrt another memory
+		   access.  */
 		THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending, NULL);
 
 		/* Just bump the counter.  */
@@ -414,7 +442,12 @@ __pthread_mutex_lock_full (pthread_mutex_t *mutex)
 	    /* But it is inconsistent unless marked otherwise.  */
 	    mutex->__data.__owner = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INCONSISTENT;
 
+	    /* We must not enqueue the mutex before we have acquired it.
+	       Also see comments at ENQUEUE_MUTEX.  */
+	    __asm ("" ::: "memory");
 	    ENQUEUE_MUTEX_PI (mutex);
+	    /* We need to clear op_pending after we enqueue the mutex.  */
+	    __asm ("" ::: "memory");
 	    THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending, NULL);
 
 	    /* Note that we deliberately exit here.  If we fall
@@ -442,6 +475,8 @@ __pthread_mutex_lock_full (pthread_mutex_t *mutex)
 						  PTHREAD_ROBUST_MUTEX_PSHARED (mutex)),
 			      0, 0);
 
+	    /* To the kernel, this will be visible after the kernel has
+	       acquired the mutex in the syscall.  */
 	    THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending, NULL);
 	    return ENOTRECOVERABLE;
 	  }
@@ -449,7 +484,12 @@ __pthread_mutex_lock_full (pthread_mutex_t *mutex)
 	mutex->__data.__count = 1;
 	if (robust)
 	  {
+	    /* We must not enqueue the mutex before we have acquired it.
+	       Also see comments at ENQUEUE_MUTEX.  */
+	    __asm ("" ::: "memory");
 	    ENQUEUE_MUTEX_PI (mutex);
+	    /* We need to clear op_pending after we enqueue the mutex.  */
+	    __asm ("" ::: "memory");
 	    THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending, NULL);
 	  }
       }
diff --git a/nptl/pthread_mutex_timedlock.c b/nptl/pthread_mutex_timedlock.c
index ddd46fe414..a4beb7b0dc 100644
--- a/nptl/pthread_mutex_timedlock.c
+++ b/nptl/pthread_mutex_timedlock.c
@@ -140,6 +140,9 @@ pthread_mutex_timedlock (pthread_mutex_t *mutex,
     case PTHREAD_MUTEX_ROBUST_ADAPTIVE_NP:
       THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending,
 		     &mutex->__data.__list.__next);
+      /* We need to set op_pending before starting the operation.  Also
+	 see comments at ENQUEUE_MUTEX.  */
+      __asm ("" ::: "memory");
 
       oldval = mutex->__data.__lock;
       /* This is set to FUTEX_WAITERS iff we might have shared the
@@ -177,7 +180,12 @@ pthread_mutex_timedlock (pthread_mutex_t *mutex,
 	      /* But it is inconsistent unless marked otherwise.  */
 	      mutex->__data.__owner = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INCONSISTENT;
 
+	      /* We must not enqueue the mutex before we have acquired it.
+		 Also see comments at ENQUEUE_MUTEX.  */
+	      __asm ("" ::: "memory");
 	      ENQUEUE_MUTEX (mutex);
+	      /* We need to clear op_pending after we enqueue the mutex.  */
+	      __asm ("" ::: "memory");
 	      THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending, NULL);
 
 	      /* Note that we deliberately exit here.  If we fall
@@ -193,6 +201,8 @@ pthread_mutex_timedlock (pthread_mutex_t *mutex,
 	      int kind = PTHREAD_MUTEX_TYPE (mutex);
 	      if (kind == PTHREAD_MUTEX_ROBUST_ERRORCHECK_NP)
 		{
+		  /* We do not need to ensure ordering wrt another memory
+		     access.  Also see comments at ENQUEUE_MUTEX. */
 		  THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending,
 				 NULL);
 		  return EDEADLK;
@@ -200,6 +210,8 @@ pthread_mutex_timedlock (pthread_mutex_t *mutex,
 
 	      if (kind == PTHREAD_MUTEX_ROBUST_RECURSIVE_NP)
 		{
+		  /* We do not need to ensure ordering wrt another memory
+		     access.  */
 		  THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending,
 				 NULL);
 
@@ -294,12 +306,19 @@ pthread_mutex_timedlock (pthread_mutex_t *mutex,
 	  mutex->__data.__count = 0;
 	  int private = PTHREAD_ROBUST_MUTEX_PSHARED (mutex);
 	  lll_unlock (mutex->__data.__lock, private);
+	  /* FIXME This violates the mutex destruction requirements.  See
+	     __pthread_mutex_unlock_full.  */
 	  THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending, NULL);
 	  return ENOTRECOVERABLE;
 	}
 
       mutex->__data.__count = 1;
+      /* We must not enqueue the mutex before we have acquired it.
+	 Also see comments at ENQUEUE_MUTEX.  */
+      __asm ("" ::: "memory");
       ENQUEUE_MUTEX (mutex);
+      /* We need to clear op_pending after we enqueue the mutex.  */
+      __asm ("" ::: "memory");
       THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending, NULL);
       break;
 
@@ -320,10 +339,15 @@ pthread_mutex_timedlock (pthread_mutex_t *mutex,
 	int robust = mutex->__data.__kind & PTHREAD_MUTEX_ROBUST_NORMAL_NP;
 
 	if (robust)
-	  /* Note: robust PI futexes are signaled by setting bit 0.  */
-	  THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending,
-			 (void *) (((uintptr_t) &mutex->__data.__list.__next)
-				   | 1));
+	  {
+	    /* Note: robust PI futexes are signaled by setting bit 0.  */
+	    THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending,
+			   (void *) (((uintptr_t) &mutex->__data.__list.__next)
+				     | 1));
+	    /* We need to set op_pending before starting the operation.  Also
+	       see comments at ENQUEUE_MUTEX.  */
+	    __asm ("" ::: "memory");
+	  }
 
 	oldval = mutex->__data.__lock;
 
@@ -332,12 +356,16 @@ pthread_mutex_timedlock (pthread_mutex_t *mutex,
 	  {
 	    if (kind == PTHREAD_MUTEX_ERRORCHECK_NP)
 	      {
+		/* We do not need to ensure ordering wrt another memory
+		   access.  */
 		THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending, NULL);
 		return EDEADLK;
 	      }
 
 	    if (kind == PTHREAD_MUTEX_RECURSIVE_NP)
 	      {
+		/* We do not need to ensure ordering wrt another memory
+		   access.  */
 		THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending, NULL);
 
 		/* Just bump the counter.  */
@@ -424,7 +452,12 @@ pthread_mutex_timedlock (pthread_mutex_t *mutex,
 	    /* But it is inconsistent unless marked otherwise.  */
 	    mutex->__data.__owner = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INCONSISTENT;
 
+	    /* We must not enqueue the mutex before we have acquired it.
+	       Also see comments at ENQUEUE_MUTEX.  */
+	    __asm ("" ::: "memory");
 	    ENQUEUE_MUTEX_PI (mutex);
+	    /* We need to clear op_pending after we enqueue the mutex.  */
+	    __asm ("" ::: "memory");
 	    THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending, NULL);
 
 	    /* Note that we deliberately exit here.  If we fall
@@ -447,6 +480,8 @@ pthread_mutex_timedlock (pthread_mutex_t *mutex,
 						  PTHREAD_ROBUST_MUTEX_PSHARED (mutex)),
 			      0, 0);
 
+	    /* To the kernel, this will be visible after the kernel has
+	       acquired the mutex in the syscall.  */
 	    THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending, NULL);
 	    return ENOTRECOVERABLE;
 	  }
@@ -454,7 +489,12 @@ pthread_mutex_timedlock (pthread_mutex_t *mutex,
 	mutex->__data.__count = 1;
 	if (robust)
 	  {
+	    /* We must not enqueue the mutex before we have acquired it.
+	       Also see comments at ENQUEUE_MUTEX.  */
+	    __asm ("" ::: "memory");
 	    ENQUEUE_MUTEX_PI (mutex);
+	    /* We need to clear op_pending after we enqueue the mutex.  */
+	    __asm ("" ::: "memory");
 	    THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending, NULL);
 	  }
 	}
diff --git a/nptl/pthread_mutex_unlock.c b/nptl/pthread_mutex_unlock.c
index d3b39900bc..f701d4e274 100644
--- a/nptl/pthread_mutex_unlock.c
+++ b/nptl/pthread_mutex_unlock.c
@@ -143,6 +143,9 @@ __pthread_mutex_unlock_full (pthread_mutex_t *mutex, int decr)
       /* Remove mutex from the list.  */
       THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending,
 		     &mutex->__data.__list.__next);
+      /* We must set op_pending before we dequeue the mutex.  Also see
+	 comments at ENQUEUE_MUTEX.  */
+      __asm ("" ::: "memory");
       DEQUEUE_MUTEX (mutex);
 
       mutex->__data.__owner = newowner;
@@ -159,6 +162,14 @@ __pthread_mutex_unlock_full (pthread_mutex_t *mutex, int decr)
 			     & FUTEX_WAITERS) != 0))
 	lll_futex_wake (&mutex->__data.__lock, 1, private);
 
+      /* We must clear op_pending after we release the mutex.
+	 FIXME However, this violates the mutex destruction requirements
+	 because another thread could acquire the mutex, destroy it, and
+	 reuse the memory for something else; then, if this thread crashes,
+	 and the memory happens to have a value equal to the TID, the kernel
+	 will believe it is still related to the mutex (which has been
+	 destroyed already) and will modify some other random object.  */
+      __asm ("" ::: "memory");
       THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending, NULL);
       break;
 
@@ -227,6 +238,9 @@ __pthread_mutex_unlock_full (pthread_mutex_t *mutex, int decr)
 	  THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending,
 			 (void *) (((uintptr_t) &mutex->__data.__list.__next)
 				   | 1));
+	  /* We must set op_pending before we dequeue the mutex.  Also see
+	     comments at ENQUEUE_MUTEX.  */
+	  __asm ("" ::: "memory");
 	  DEQUEUE_MUTEX (mutex);
 	}
 
@@ -262,6 +276,9 @@ __pthread_mutex_unlock_full (pthread_mutex_t *mutex, int decr)
       while (!atomic_compare_exchange_weak_release (&mutex->__data.__lock,
 						    &l, 0));
 
+      /* This happens after the kernel releases the mutex but violates the
+	 mutex destruction requirements; see comments in the code handling
+	 PTHREAD_MUTEX_ROBUST_NORMAL_NP.  */
       THREAD_SETMEM (THREAD_SELF, robust_head.list_op_pending, NULL);
       break;
 #endif  /* __NR_futex.  */