kernel/locking/mutex.c | 12 ++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
From: "buck.zhang" <buckzhang1212@yeah.net>
Here is a kernel exception about mutex and I can recreate it stably.
First we define a custome struct that includes a mutex lock.
Then allocate this struct by kmalloc without calling mutex_init.
Finally when multiple tasks call mutex_lock together,kernel will panic.
But Kernel is good if only one task call this mutex at the same time.
the exception reason is that lock->wait_list is an invalid kernel list.
kernel crash log:
Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 0000000
pc: __mutex_add_waiter+0x68/0x160
lr: __mutex_add_waiter+0x128/0x160
sp: ffffffc0866f3ac0
x29: ffffffc0866f3ad0 x28: ffffff8095148000 x27: 0000000000000000
x2: ffffffc0866f3b18 x1 : 0000000000000000 x0 : 0000000000000000
Call trace:
__mutex_add_waiter+0x68/0x160
__mutex_lock+0x48c/0x119c
__mutex_lock_slowpath+0x1c/0x2c
mutex_lock+0x48/0x144
Test case:
struct chip_mutex {
struct mutex tmutex;
};
static void work_handler1(struct chip_mutex *cmutex)
{
mutex_lock(&(cmutex->tmutex));
}
static void work_handler2(struct chip_mutex *cmutex)
{
mutex_lock(&(cmutex->tmutex));
}
static void chip_tmutex(void)
{
struct chip_mutex *cmutex;
cmutex = kzalloc(sizeof(struct chip_mutex),GFP_KERNEL);
work_handler1(cmutex);
------
work_handler2(cmutex);
}
Signed-off-by: buck.zhang <buckzhang1212@yeah.net>
---
kernel/locking/mutex.c | 12 ++++++++++++
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
index de7d6702c..8fbe858c8 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
@@ -42,6 +42,16 @@
#else
# define MUTEX_WARN_ON(cond)
#endif
+#define MUTEX_CHCEK_INIT(lock) mutex_check_waitlist(lock)
+static void mutex_check_waitlist(struct mutex *lock)
+{
+ struct list_head *list = &lock->wait_list;
+
+ if ((unsigned long)list->next < PAGE_OFFSET) {
+ pr_err("BUG: mutex lock is uninitialized,wait_list is Error\n");
+ MUTEX_WARN_ON("mutex lock is uninitialized");
+ }
+}
void
__mutex_init(struct mutex *lock, const char *name, struct lock_class_key *key)
@@ -269,6 +279,7 @@ static void __sched __mutex_lock_slowpath(struct mutex *lock);
void __sched mutex_lock(struct mutex *lock)
{
might_sleep();
+ MUTEX_CHCEK_INIT(lock);
if (!__mutex_trylock_fast(lock))
__mutex_lock_slowpath(lock);
@@ -991,6 +1002,7 @@ __mutex_lock_interruptible_slowpath(struct mutex *lock);
int __sched mutex_lock_interruptible(struct mutex *lock)
{
might_sleep();
+ MUTEX_CHCEK_INIT(lock);
if (__mutex_trylock_fast(lock))
return 0;
@@ -1015,6 +1027,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(mutex_lock_interruptible);
int __sched mutex_lock_killable(struct mutex *lock)
{
might_sleep();
+ MUTEX_CHCEK_INIT(lock);
if (__mutex_trylock_fast(lock))
return 0;
--
2.17.1
Hi,
kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings:
[auto build test WARNING on tip/locking/core]
[also build test WARNING on linus/master v6.17-rc7 next-20250923]
[If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information]
url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/buckzhang1212-yeah-net/locking-mutex-add-MUTEX_CHCEK_INIT-to-detect-uninitialized-mutex-lock/20250924-103805
base: tip/locking/core
patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250924022500.2577-1-buckzhang1212%40yeah.net
patch subject: [PATCH] locking/mutex:add MUTEX_CHCEK_INIT to detect uninitialized mutex lock
config: i386-randconfig-014-20250924 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250924/202509242322.VggjpcD5-lkp@intel.com/config)
compiler: gcc-14 (Debian 14.2.0-19) 14.2.0
reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250924/202509242322.VggjpcD5-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)
If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
| Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202509242322.VggjpcD5-lkp@intel.com/
All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
>> kernel/locking/mutex.c:46:13: warning: 'mutex_check_waitlist' defined but not used [-Wunused-function]
46 | static void mutex_check_waitlist(struct mutex *lock)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
vim +/mutex_check_waitlist +46 kernel/locking/mutex.c
39
40 #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES
41 # define MUTEX_WARN_ON(cond) DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(cond)
42 #else
43 # define MUTEX_WARN_ON(cond)
44 #endif
45 #define MUTEX_CHCEK_INIT(lock) mutex_check_waitlist(lock)
> 46 static void mutex_check_waitlist(struct mutex *lock)
47 {
48 struct list_head *list = &lock->wait_list;
49
50 if ((unsigned long)list->next < PAGE_OFFSET) {
51 pr_err("BUG: mutex lock is uninitialized,wait_list is Error\n");
52 MUTEX_WARN_ON("mutex lock is uninitialized");
53 }
54 }
55
--
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki
On 9/23/25 10:25 PM, buckzhang1212@yeah.net wrote:
> From: "buck.zhang" <buckzhang1212@yeah.net>
>
> Here is a kernel exception about mutex and I can recreate it stably.
> First we define a custome struct that includes a mutex lock.
> Then allocate this struct by kmalloc without calling mutex_init.
> Finally when multiple tasks call mutex_lock together,kernel will panic.
> But Kernel is good if only one task call this mutex at the same time.
> the exception reason is that lock->wait_list is an invalid kernel list.
> kernel crash log:
> Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 0000000
> pc: __mutex_add_waiter+0x68/0x160
> lr: __mutex_add_waiter+0x128/0x160
> sp: ffffffc0866f3ac0
> x29: ffffffc0866f3ad0 x28: ffffff8095148000 x27: 0000000000000000
> x2: ffffffc0866f3b18 x1 : 0000000000000000 x0 : 0000000000000000
> Call trace:
> __mutex_add_waiter+0x68/0x160
> __mutex_lock+0x48c/0x119c
> __mutex_lock_slowpath+0x1c/0x2c
> mutex_lock+0x48/0x144
> Test case:
> struct chip_mutex {
> struct mutex tmutex;
> };
> static void work_handler1(struct chip_mutex *cmutex)
> {
> mutex_lock(&(cmutex->tmutex));
> }
> static void work_handler2(struct chip_mutex *cmutex)
> {
> mutex_lock(&(cmutex->tmutex));
> }
> static void chip_tmutex(void)
> {
> struct chip_mutex *cmutex;
> cmutex = kzalloc(sizeof(struct chip_mutex),GFP_KERNEL);
> work_handler1(cmutex);
> ------
> work_handler2(cmutex);
> }
>
> Signed-off-by: buck.zhang <buckzhang1212@yeah.net>
A mutex must be properly initialized before it can be used. The kernel
panic you listed above is expected and the panic itself indicates that
the code is wrong.
> ---
> kernel/locking/mutex.c | 12 ++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> index de7d6702c..8fbe858c8 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> @@ -42,6 +42,16 @@
> #else
> # define MUTEX_WARN_ON(cond)
> #endif
> +#define MUTEX_CHCEK_INIT(lock) mutex_check_waitlist(lock)
> +static void mutex_check_waitlist(struct mutex *lock)
> +{
> + struct list_head *list = &lock->wait_list;
> +
> + if ((unsigned long)list->next < PAGE_OFFSET) {
> + pr_err("BUG: mutex lock is uninitialized,wait_list is Error\n");
> + MUTEX_WARN_ON("mutex lock is uninitialized");
> + }
> +}
>
> void
> __mutex_init(struct mutex *lock, const char *name, struct lock_class_key *key)
> @@ -269,6 +279,7 @@ static void __sched __mutex_lock_slowpath(struct mutex *lock);
> void __sched mutex_lock(struct mutex *lock)
> {
> might_sleep();
> + MUTEX_CHCEK_INIT(lock);
>
> if (!__mutex_trylock_fast(lock))
> __mutex_lock_slowpath(lock);
This check has provided no additional value and it slows down the
locking fast path.
NACK
> @@ -991,6 +1002,7 @@ __mutex_lock_interruptible_slowpath(struct mutex *lock);
> int __sched mutex_lock_interruptible(struct mutex *lock)
> {
> might_sleep();
> + MUTEX_CHCEK_INIT(lock);
>
> if (__mutex_trylock_fast(lock))
> return 0;
> @@ -1015,6 +1027,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(mutex_lock_interruptible);
> int __sched mutex_lock_killable(struct mutex *lock)
> {
> might_sleep();
> + MUTEX_CHCEK_INIT(lock);
>
> if (__mutex_trylock_fast(lock))
> return 0;
On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 11:10:22PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 9/23/25 10:25 PM, buckzhang1212@yeah.net wrote:
> A mutex must be properly initialized before it can be used. The kernel panic
> you listed above is expected and the panic itself indicates that the code is
> wrong.
> > @@ -269,6 +279,7 @@ static void __sched __mutex_lock_slowpath(struct mutex *lock);
> > void __sched mutex_lock(struct mutex *lock)
> > {
> > might_sleep();
> > + MUTEX_CHCEK_INIT(lock);
> > if (!__mutex_trylock_fast(lock))
> > __mutex_lock_slowpath(lock);
>
> This check has provided no additional value and it slows down the locking
> fast path.
>
> NACK
Agreed. Additionally we have CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES. If you feel there is
a check missing there -- you could argue that debug_mutex_lock_common()
should have something like:
DEBUG_LOCK_WARN_ON(lock->magic != lock);
feel free to send a patch for that.
But don't go sprinkle debug code in !debug builds.
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.