The commit which tried to fix the concurrency issues of concurrent
static_key_slow_inc() failed to fix the equivalent issues
vs. static_key_slow_dec():
CPU0 CPU1
static_key_slow_dec()
static_key_slow_try_dec()
key->enabled == 1
val = atomic_fetch_add_unless(&key->enabled, -1, 1);
if (val == 1)
return false;
jump_label_lock();
if (atomic_dec_and_test(&key->enabled)) {
--> key->enabled == 0
__jump_label_update()
static_key_slow_dec()
static_key_slow_try_dec()
key->enabled == 0
val = atomic_fetch_add_unless(&key->enabled, -1, 1);
--> key->enabled == -1 <- FAIL
There is another bug in that code, when there is a concurrent
static_key_slow_inc() which enables the key as that sets key->enabled to -1
so on the other CPU
val = atomic_fetch_add_unless(&key->enabled, -1, 1);
will succeed and decrement to -2, which is invalid.
Cure all of this by replacing the atomic_fetch_add_unless() with a
atomic_try_cmpxchg() loop similar to static_key_fast_inc_not_disabled().
[peterz: add WARN_ON_ONCE for the -1 race]
Fixes: 4c5ea0a9cd ("locking/static_key: Fix concurrent static_key_slow_inc()")
Reported-by: Yue Sun <samsun1006219@gmail.com>
Reported-by: Xingwei Lee <xrivendell7@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240610124406.422897838@linutronix.de
83ab38ef0a