Glenn reported that "an application [he developed produces] a BUG in
deadline.c when a SCHED_DEADLINE task contends with CFS tasks on nested
PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT mutexes.  I believe the bug is triggered when a CFS
task that was boosted by a SCHED_DEADLINE task boosts another CFS task
(nested priority inheritance).

 ------------[ cut here ]------------
 kernel BUG at kernel/sched/deadline.c:1462!
 invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP
 CPU: 12 PID: 19171 Comm: dl_boost_bug Tainted: ...
 Hardware name: ...
 RIP: 0010:enqueue_task_dl+0x335/0x910
 Code: ...
 RSP: 0018:ffffc9000c2bbc68 EFLAGS: 00010002
 RAX: 0000000000000009 RBX: ffff888c0af94c00 RCX: ffffffff81e12500
 RDX: 000000000000002e RSI: ffff888c0af94c00 RDI: ffff888c10b22600
 RBP: ffffc9000c2bbd08 R08: 0000000000000009 R09: 0000000000000078
 R10: ffffffff81e12440 R11: ffffffff81e1236c R12: ffff888bc8932600
 R13: ffff888c0af94eb8 R14: ffff888c10b22600 R15: ffff888bc8932600
 FS:  00007fa58ac55700(0000) GS:ffff888c10b00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
 CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
 CR2: 00007fa58b523230 CR3: 0000000bf44ab003 CR4: 00000000007606e0
 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
 PKRU: 55555554
 Call Trace:
  ? intel_pstate_update_util_hwp+0x13/0x170
  rt_mutex_setprio+0x1cc/0x4b0
  task_blocks_on_rt_mutex+0x225/0x260
  rt_spin_lock_slowlock_locked+0xab/0x2d0
  rt_spin_lock_slowlock+0x50/0x80
  hrtimer_grab_expiry_lock+0x20/0x30
  hrtimer_cancel+0x13/0x30
  do_nanosleep+0xa0/0x150
  hrtimer_nanosleep+0xe1/0x230
  ? __hrtimer_init_sleeper+0x60/0x60
  __x64_sys_nanosleep+0x8d/0xa0
  do_syscall_64+0x4a/0x100
  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
 RIP: 0033:0x7fa58b52330d
 ...
 ---[ end trace 0000000000000002 ]—

He also provided a simple reproducer creating the situation below:

 So the execution order of locking steps are the following
 (N1 and N2 are non-deadline tasks. D1 is a deadline task. M1 and M2
 are mutexes that are enabled * with priority inheritance.)

 Time moves forward as this timeline goes down:

 N1              N2               D1
 |               |                |
 |               |                |
 Lock(M1)        |                |
 |               |                |
 |             Lock(M2)           |
 |               |                |
 |               |              Lock(M2)
 |               |                |
 |             Lock(M1)           |
 |             (!!bug triggered!) |

Daniel reported a similar situation as well, by just letting ksoftirqd
run with DEADLINE (and eventually block on a mutex).

Problem is that boosted entities (Priority Inheritance) use static
DEADLINE parameters of the top priority waiter. However, there might be
cases where top waiter could be a non-DEADLINE entity that is currently
boosted by a DEADLINE entity from a different lock chain (i.e., nested
priority chains involving entities of non-DEADLINE classes). In this
case, top waiter static DEADLINE parameters could be null (initialized
to 0 at fork()) and replenish_dl_entity() would hit a BUG().

Fix this by keeping track of the original donor and using its parameters
when a task is boosted.
Reported-by: Glenn Elliott <glenn@aurora.tech>
Reported-by: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Tested-by: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201117061432.517340-1-juri.lelli@redhat.com