linux-kernel - Re: TFD_CANCEL_ON_SET race when making a wall clock

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 2 Sep 2011 17:00:30 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Colin Walters <walters@...bum.org>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: TFD_CANCEL_ON_SET race when making a wall clock

On Fri, 2 Sep 2011, Colin Walters wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> So I was recently making GNOME use the new timerfd TFD_CANCEL_ON_SET so
> we get woken up when the system clock changes.  It works generally well,
> except Ryan Lortie pointed out a race condition in my use of
> timerfd_settime() that I think anyone using it to make a wall clock
> display might not realize at first:
> 
> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=655129#c36
> 
> For the link-averse, basically the system clock can move backwards
> between when the process gets the current time, and computes the wakeup
> (typically for the next minute).
> 
> I was able to work around it in userspace with this patch:
> http://bugzilla-attachments.gnome.org/attachment.cgi?id=195252
> But it's clearly not what I'd call beautiful.
> 
> I don't see a nice way to handle this in the kernel given the current
> API, but maybe someone else does?
> 
> TFD_CANCEL_ON_SET isn't documented in man-pages at all right now...maybe
> this is just a useful note for a future patch to
> man-pages/man2/timerfd_create.2.

Well, the kernel can only handle the time was set scenario from the
point when timerfd_create() is called.

There is no way to handle:

   clock_gettime(a);
				clock_settime();
   timerfd_create();
   timerfd_settime(a + x);

And there wont be one ever. The guarantee is that _after_
timerfd_create() any modification to CLOCK_REALTIME in either
direction is causing a cancelation of the timer.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/