From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Jeremy Katz <jeremy.katz@windriver.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Stable Team <stable@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] posix-timer: fix deletion race
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:07:05 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070717130705.GA74@tv-sign.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1184662429.12353.426.camel@chaos>
On 07/17, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> Jeremy Katz experienced a posix-timer related bug on 2.6.14. This is
> caused by a subtle race, which is there since the original posix timer
> commit and persists until today.
>
> timer_delete does:
> lock_timer();
> timer->it_process = NULL;
> unlock_timer();
> release_posix_timer();
>
> timer->it_process is checked in lock_timer() to prevent access to a
> timer, which is on the way to be deleted, but the check happens after
> idr_lock is dropped. This allows release_posix_timer() to delete the
> timer before the lock code can check the timer:
>
> CPU 0 CPU 1
> lock_timer();
> timer->it_process = NULL;
> unlock_timer();
> lock_timer()
> spin_lock(idr_lock);
> timer = idr_find();
> spin_lock(timer->lock);
> spin_unlock(idr_lock);
> release_posix_timer();
> spin_lock(idr_lock);
> idr_remove(timer);
> spin_unlock(idr_lock);
> free_timer(timer);
> if (timer->......)
This is funny. I do remember this bug was discussed a couple of years ago,
and the conclusion was "we can fix it later" :)
> --- a/kernel/posix-timers.c
> +++ b/kernel/posix-timers.c
> @@ -605,13 +605,14 @@ static struct k_itimer * lock_timer(timer_t timer_id, unsigned long *flags)
> timr = (struct k_itimer *) idr_find(&posix_timers_id, (int) timer_id);
> if (timr) {
> spin_lock(&timr->it_lock);
> - spin_unlock(&idr_lock);
>
> if ((timr->it_id != timer_id) || !(timr->it_process) ||
> timr->it_process->tgid != current->tgid) {
> - unlock_timer(timr, *flags);
> + spin_unlock(&timr->it_lock);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&idr_lock, *flags);
> timr = NULL;
> - }
> + } else
> + spin_unlock(&idr_lock);
> } else
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&idr_lock, *flags);
I think we can make a simpler patch,
--- posix-timers.c~ 2007-06-29 14:45:04.000000000 +0400
+++ posix-timers.c 2007-07-17 16:59:45.000000000 +0400
@@ -449,6 +449,9 @@ static void release_posix_timer(struct k
idr_remove(&posix_timers_id, tmr->it_id);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&idr_lock, flags);
}
+
+ spin_unlock_wait(tmr->it_lock);
+
sigqueue_free(tmr->sigq);
if (unlikely(tmr->it_process) &&
tmr->it_sigev_notify == (SIGEV_SIGNAL|SIGEV_THREAD_ID))
What do you think? Instead of complicating the lock_timer(), release_posix_timer()
just makes sure that nobody can "use" tmr.
(Actually, I am not sure this is my idea, perhaps something like above was suggested
by somebody else, I forgot the discussion completely).
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-07-17 13:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-07-13 18:19 POSIX timer deletion race? Jeremy Katz
2007-07-17 8:53 ` [PATCH] posix-timer: fix deletion race Thomas Gleixner
2007-07-17 9:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-07-17 18:29 ` Jeremy Katz
2007-07-17 13:07 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2007-07-17 17:02 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-07-17 18:39 ` Jeremy Katz
2007-07-17 20:17 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-07-17 23:12 ` Jeremy Katz
2007-07-17 23:58 ` Jeremy Katz
2007-07-18 6:05 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-07-18 6:58 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-07-18 19:02 ` Jeremy Katz
2007-07-18 23:43 ` Jeremy Katz
2007-07-19 5:50 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-07-19 19:24 ` Jeremy Katz
2007-07-18 16:11 ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-07-18 19:08 ` Jeremy Katz
2007-07-20 14:15 ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-07-24 2:07 ` Jeremy Katz
2007-07-24 14:51 ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-07-24 18:36 ` Jeremy Katz
2007-07-24 20:43 ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-07-24 21:19 ` Jeremy Katz
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20070717130705.GA74@tv-sign.ru \
--to=oleg@tv-sign.ru \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=jeremy.katz@windriver.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=stable@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox