* Re: [BUG] Race condition with it_real_fn in kernel/itimer.c
@ 2005-06-15 17:39 Oleg Nesterov
2005-06-15 18:37 ` Steven Rostedt
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Oleg Nesterov @ 2005-06-15 17:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Steven Rostedt; +Cc: linux-kernel
Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> + try_again:
> spin_lock_irq(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
> interval = tsk->signal->it_real_incr;
> val = it_real_value(tsk->signal);
> - if (val)
> + if (val) {
> + spin_unlock_irq(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
> del_timer_sync(&tsk->signal->real_timer);
> + goto try_again;
I think we don't need del_timer_sync() at all, just del_timer().
Because it_real_value() returns 0 when timer is not pending. And
in this case the timer may still be running, but do_setitimer()
doesn't call del_timer_sync().
Oleg.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [BUG] Race condition with it_real_fn in kernel/itimer.c
2005-06-15 17:39 [BUG] Race condition with it_real_fn in kernel/itimer.c Oleg Nesterov
@ 2005-06-15 18:37 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-06-15 19:34 ` [PATCH] " Steven Rostedt
2005-06-16 9:03 ` [BUG] Race condition with it_real_fn in kernel/itimer.c Oleg Nesterov
0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Steven Rostedt @ 2005-06-15 18:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Oleg Nesterov; +Cc: Andrew Morton, Ingo Molnar, linux-kernel
On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 21:39 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > + try_again:
> > spin_lock_irq(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
> > interval = tsk->signal->it_real_incr;
> > val = it_real_value(tsk->signal);
> > - if (val)
> > + if (val) {
> > + spin_unlock_irq(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
> > del_timer_sync(&tsk->signal->real_timer);
> > + goto try_again;
>
> I think we don't need del_timer_sync() at all, just del_timer().
>
> Because it_real_value() returns 0 when timer is not pending. And
> in this case the timer may still be running, but do_setitimer()
> doesn't call del_timer_sync().
OK, so is this the better patch?
[Andrew, do NOT use the following]
--- linux-2.6.12-rc6/kernel/itimer.c.orig 2005-06-15 12:14:13.000000000 -0400
+++ linux-2.6.12-rc6/kernel/itimer.c 2005-06-15 14:06:23.000000000 -0400
@@ -157,7 +157,7 @@
interval = tsk->signal->it_real_incr;
val = it_real_value(tsk->signal);
if (val)
- del_timer_sync(&tsk->signal->real_timer);
+ del_timer(&tsk->signal->real_timer);
tsk->signal->it_real_incr =
timeval_to_jiffies(&value->it_interval);
it_real_arm(tsk, timeval_to_jiffies(&value->it_value));
I haven't played too much with the itimer, what harm can happen if the
timer is running while this is deleted? [examines code here] This also
looks bad. Since the softirq function can be running and then call
it_real_arm unprotected! And you can see here that it_real_arm is also
called and they both call add_timer! This would not work, so far the
first patch seems to handle this.
-- Steve
PS. Don't strip the CC list.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] Re: [BUG] Race condition with it_real_fn in kernel/itimer.c
2005-06-15 18:37 ` Steven Rostedt
@ 2005-06-15 19:34 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-06-16 7:44 ` Oleg Nesterov
2005-06-16 9:03 ` [BUG] Race condition with it_real_fn in kernel/itimer.c Oleg Nesterov
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Steven Rostedt @ 2005-06-15 19:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Oleg Nesterov; +Cc: Andrew Morton, Ingo Molnar, linux-kernel
On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 14:37 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> I haven't played too much with the itimer, what harm can happen if the
> timer is running while this is deleted? [examines code here] This also
> looks bad. Since the softirq function can be running and then call
> it_real_arm unprotected! And you can see here that it_real_arm is also
> called and they both call add_timer! This would not work, so far the
> first patch seems to handle this.
Ha! There's even another problem that I just noticed. it_real_value
could return zero while the function is running! So you don't get the
protection here either! Take a look here to see what the problem is.
static unsigned long it_real_value(struct signal_struct *sig)
{
unsigned long val = 0;
if (timer_pending(&sig->real_timer)) {
val = sig->real_timer.expires - jiffies;
/* look out for negative/zero itimer.. */
if ((long) val <= 0)
val = 1;
}
return val;
}
and
static inline int timer_pending(const struct timer_list * timer)
{
return timer->base != NULL;
}
and
static inline void __run_timers(tvec_base_t *base)
{
...
timer = list_entry(head->next,struct timer_list,entry);
fn = timer->function;
data = timer->data;
list_del(&timer->entry);
set_running_timer(base, timer);
smp_wmb();
timer->base = NULL;
spin_unlock_irq(&base->lock);
{
u32 preempt_count = preempt_count();
fn(data);
...
}
So, timer_pending tests if timer->base is NULL, but here we see that
timer->base IS NULL before the function is called, and as I have said
earlier, the it_real_arm can be called on two CPUS simultaneously. So
here's another patch that should fix this race condition too.
--- linux-2.6.12-rc6/kernel/itimer.c.orig 2005-06-15 12:14:13.000000000 -0400
+++ linux-2.6.12-rc6/kernel/itimer.c 2005-06-15 15:31:12.000000000 -0400
@@ -156,8 +156,15 @@
spin_lock_irq(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
interval = tsk->signal->it_real_incr;
val = it_real_value(tsk->signal);
- if (val)
- del_timer_sync(&tsk->signal->real_timer);
+ /*
+ * Call del_timer_sync unconditionally, since we don't
+ * know if it is running or not. We also need to unlock
+ * the siglock so that the it_real_fn called by ksoftirqd
+ * doesn't wait for us.
+ */
+ spin_unlock(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
+ del_timer_sync(&tsk->signal->real_timer);
+ spin_lock(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
tsk->signal->it_real_incr =
timeval_to_jiffies(&value->it_interval);
it_real_arm(tsk, timeval_to_jiffies(&value->it_value));
-- Steve
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Re: [BUG] Race condition with it_real_fn in kernel/itimer.c
2005-06-15 19:34 ` [PATCH] " Steven Rostedt
@ 2005-06-16 7:44 ` Oleg Nesterov
2005-06-16 11:33 ` Steven Rostedt
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Oleg Nesterov @ 2005-06-16 7:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Steven Rostedt; +Cc: Andrew Morton, Ingo Molnar, linux-kernel
Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> So, timer_pending tests if timer->base is NULL, but here we see that
> timer->base IS NULL before the function is called, and as I have said
> earlier, the it_real_arm can be called on two CPUS simultaneously. So
> here's another patch that should fix this race condition too.
>
> [...]
>
> + /*
> + * Call del_timer_sync unconditionally, since we don't
> + * know if it is running or not. We also need to unlock
> + * the siglock so that the it_real_fn called by ksoftirqd
> + * doesn't wait for us.
> + */
> + spin_unlock(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
> + del_timer_sync(&tsk->signal->real_timer);
> + spin_lock(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
I don't think this is 100% correct. After del_timer_sync() returns another
thread can come and call do_setitimer() and re-arm the timer (because with
your patch we are dropping tsk->sighand->siglock here). So this patch does
not garantees that the timer is not queued/running after del_timer_sync(),
and the it_real_arm can be called on two CPUS simultaneously again.
There is a try_to_del_timer_sync() in the -mm tree which is suitable here:
again:
spin_lock_irq(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
if (try_to_del_timer_sync(&tsk->signal->real_timer) < 0) {
spin_unlock_irq(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
goto again;
}
Oleg.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [BUG] Race condition with it_real_fn in kernel/itimer.c
2005-06-15 18:37 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-06-15 19:34 ` [PATCH] " Steven Rostedt
@ 2005-06-16 9:03 ` Oleg Nesterov
1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Oleg Nesterov @ 2005-06-16 9:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Steven Rostedt; +Cc: Andrew Morton, Ingo Molnar, linux-kernel
Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 21:39 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > I think we don't need del_timer_sync() at all, just del_timer().
> >
> [...]
>
> it_real_arm unprotected! And you can see here that it_real_arm is also
> called and they both call add_timer! This would not work, so far the
> first patch seems to handle this.
Yes, you are right, thanks.
> PS. Don't strip the CC list.
I am sorry. It's because I am not subscribed to lkml, I saw your message
on http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/. You might know is there an lkml archive
which does not hide recipients list (or in mbox format) ?
Oleg.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Re: [BUG] Race condition with it_real_fn in kernel/itimer.c
2005-06-16 7:44 ` Oleg Nesterov
@ 2005-06-16 11:33 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-06-16 11:44 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-06-16 14:30 ` [PATCH] Re: [BUG] Race condition with it_real_fn inkernel/itimer.c Oleg Nesterov
0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Steven Rostedt @ 2005-06-16 11:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Oleg Nesterov; +Cc: Roland McGrath, Andrew Morton, Ingo Molnar, linux-kernel
On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 11:44 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > So, timer_pending tests if timer->base is NULL, but here we see that
> > timer->base IS NULL before the function is called, and as I have said
> > earlier, the it_real_arm can be called on two CPUS simultaneously. So
> > here's another patch that should fix this race condition too.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > + /*
> > + * Call del_timer_sync unconditionally, since we don't
> > + * know if it is running or not. We also need to unlock
> > + * the siglock so that the it_real_fn called by ksoftirqd
> > + * doesn't wait for us.
> > + */
> > + spin_unlock(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
> > + del_timer_sync(&tsk->signal->real_timer);
> > + spin_lock(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
>
> I don't think this is 100% correct. After del_timer_sync() returns another
> thread can come and call do_setitimer() and re-arm the timer (because with
> your patch we are dropping tsk->sighand->siglock here). So this patch does
> not garantees that the timer is not queued/running after del_timer_sync(),
> and the it_real_arm can be called on two CPUS simultaneously again.
>
I first thought that too, but then looking at the code I noticed:
int do_setitimer(int which, struct itimerval *value, struct itimerval *ovalue)
{
struct task_struct *tsk = current;
Where tsk is current. So the only ones that can change the
tsk->signal->real_timer seems to be the task itself and ksoftirqd. So
between del_timer_sync (which handles the ksoftirqd part) and the
spin_lock, there's no one else that can modify tsk->signal->real_timer.
So I don't believe that there is a race condition here.
[thinks about this a little]
Oh wait, is ->signal shared among threads? Damn, I think so! So you are
right, another _thread_ can come and change this. I forgot about threads
(they're evil! ;-).
> There is a try_to_del_timer_sync() in the -mm tree which is suitable here:
>
> again:
> spin_lock_irq(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
> if (try_to_del_timer_sync(&tsk->signal->real_timer) < 0) {
> spin_unlock_irq(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
> goto again;
> }
OK, for the -mm branch this may work. But for the current tree, we may
need to do something else. Like this ugly patch. But it should work!
int do_setitimer(int which, struct itimerval *value, struct itimerval *ovalue)
{
struct task_struct *tsk = current;
static spinlock_t lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
[...]
spin_lock(&lock);
spin_unlock(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
del_timer_sync(&tsk->signal->real_timer);
spin_lock(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
spin_unlock(&lock);
This would handle the case for threads in the main line kernel, but it
looks (to me) pretty ugly, but should work. I also don't like this
because it is shared among all tasks!
Andrew, (or Roland since I see Andrew added you to the list)
What do you think? Should try_to_del_timer_sync be brought over to the
mainline, or have the above ugly code added?
-- Steve
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Re: [BUG] Race condition with it_real_fn in kernel/itimer.c
2005-06-16 11:33 ` Steven Rostedt
@ 2005-06-16 11:44 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-06-16 14:30 ` [PATCH] Re: [BUG] Race condition with it_real_fn inkernel/itimer.c Oleg Nesterov
1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Steven Rostedt @ 2005-06-16 11:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Oleg Nesterov; +Cc: Roland McGrath, Andrew Morton, Ingo Molnar, linux-kernel
On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 07:33 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> int do_setitimer(int which, struct itimerval *value, struct itimerval *ovalue)
> {
> struct task_struct *tsk = current;
> static spinlock_t lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
>
> [...]
> spin_lock(&lock);
> spin_unlock(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
> del_timer_sync(&tsk->signal->real_timer);
> spin_lock(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
> spin_unlock(&lock);
OK, I just got out of bed, so I'm not too with it :-)
This is pretty much a guaranteed deadlock! So the first spin_lock needs
to go before the siglock. That should do it!
case ITIMER_REAL:
spin_lock_irq(&lock);
spin_lock(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
[...]
spin_unlock(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
del_timer_sync(&tsk->signal->real_timer);
spin_lock(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
spin_unlock(&lock);
We just need to keep two do_setitimer calls from grabbing the siglock.
That first string of code didn't prevent that.
-- Steve
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Re: [BUG] Race condition with it_real_fn inkernel/itimer.c
2005-06-16 11:33 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-06-16 11:44 ` Steven Rostedt
@ 2005-06-16 14:30 ` Oleg Nesterov
1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Oleg Nesterov @ 2005-06-16 14:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Steven Rostedt; +Cc: Roland McGrath, Andrew Morton, Ingo Molnar, linux-kernel
Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> Andrew, (or Roland since I see Andrew added you to the list)
>
> What do you think? Should try_to_del_timer_sync be brought over to the
> mainline, or have the above ugly code added?
On the other hand, if 2 threads calls do_setitimer() in parallel
they are asking for trouble. So may be it is possible to ignore
this minor problem and stay with your patch?
Oleg.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-06-16 14:21 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-06-15 17:39 [BUG] Race condition with it_real_fn in kernel/itimer.c Oleg Nesterov
2005-06-15 18:37 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-06-15 19:34 ` [PATCH] " Steven Rostedt
2005-06-16 7:44 ` Oleg Nesterov
2005-06-16 11:33 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-06-16 11:44 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-06-16 14:30 ` [PATCH] Re: [BUG] Race condition with it_real_fn inkernel/itimer.c Oleg Nesterov
2005-06-16 9:03 ` [BUG] Race condition with it_real_fn in kernel/itimer.c Oleg Nesterov
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).