| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:47:19 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: pjt@...gle.com, paul.mckenney@...aro.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
tj@...nel.org, suresh.b.siddha@...el.com, venki@...gle.com,
mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, Arvind.Chauhan@....com,
linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org, patches@...aro.org,
pdsw-power-team@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 Resend 4/4] timer: Migrate running timer
[ Added John Stultz ]
On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 16:08 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Till now, we weren't migrating a running timer because with migration
> del_timer_sync() can't detect that the timer's handler yet has not finished.
>
> Now, when can we actually to reach to the code (inside __mod_timer()) where
>
> base->running_timer == timer ? i.e. We are trying to migrate current timer
>
> I can see only following case:
> - Timer re-armed itself. i.e. Currently we are running interrupt handler of a
> timer and it rearmed itself from there. At this time user might have called
> del_timer_sync() or not. If not, then there is no harm in re-arming the timer?
>
> Now, when somebody tries to delete a timer, obviously he doesn't want to run it
> any more for now. So, why should we ever re-arm a timer, which is scheduled for
> deletion?
>
> This patch tries to fix "migration of running timer", assuming above theory is
> correct :)
>
That's a question for Thomas or John (hello! Thomas or John :-)
> So, now when we get a call to del_timer_sync(), we will mark it scheduled for
> deletion in an additional variable. This would be checked whenever we try to
> modify/arm it again. If it was currently scheduled for deletion, we must not
> modify/arm it.
>
> And so, whenever we reach to the situation where:
> base->running_timer == timer
>
> We are sure, nobody is waiting in del_timer_sync().
>
> We will clear this flag as soon as the timer is deleted, so that it can be
> started again after deleting it successfully.
>
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> ---
> include/linux/timer.h | 2 ++
> kernel/timer.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/timer.h b/include/linux/timer.h
> index 8c5a197..6aa720f 100644
> --- a/include/linux/timer.h
> +++ b/include/linux/timer.h
> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ struct timer_list {
> unsigned long data;
>
> int slack;
> + int sched_del;
Make that a bool, as it's just a flag. Maybe gcc can optimize or
something.
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_TIMER_STATS
> int start_pid;
> @@ -77,6 +78,7 @@ extern struct tvec_base boot_tvec_bases;
> .data = (_data), \
> .base = (void *)((unsigned long)&boot_tvec_bases + (_flags)), \
> .slack = -1, \
> + .sched_del = 0, \
> __TIMER_LOCKDEP_MAP_INITIALIZER( \
> __FILE__ ":" __stringify(__LINE__)) \
> }
> diff --git a/kernel/timer.c b/kernel/timer.c
> index 1170ece..14e1f76 100644
> --- a/kernel/timer.c
> +++ b/kernel/timer.c
> @@ -622,6 +622,7 @@ static void do_init_timer(struct timer_list *timer, unsigned int flags,
> timer->entry.next = NULL;
> timer->base = (void *)((unsigned long)base | flags);
> timer->slack = -1;
> + timer->sched_del = 0;
> #ifdef CONFIG_TIMER_STATS
> timer->start_site = NULL;
> timer->start_pid = -1;
> @@ -729,6 +730,12 @@ __mod_timer(struct timer_list *timer, unsigned long expires,
>
> base = lock_timer_base(timer, &flags);
>
> + if (timer->sched_del) {
> + /* Don't schedule it again, as it is getting deleted */
> + ret = -EBUSY;
> + goto out_unlock;
> + }
> +
> ret = detach_if_pending(timer, base, false);
> if (!ret && pending_only)
> goto out_unlock;
> @@ -746,21 +753,12 @@ __mod_timer(struct timer_list *timer, unsigned long expires,
> new_base = per_cpu(tvec_bases, cpu);
>
> if (base != new_base) {
> - /*
> - * We are trying to schedule the timer on the local CPU.
> - * However we can't change timer's base while it is running,
> - * otherwise del_timer_sync() can't detect that the timer's
> - * handler yet has not finished. This also guarantees that
> - * the timer is serialized wrt itself.
> - */
> - if (likely(base->running_timer != timer)) {
> - /* See the comment in lock_timer_base() */
> - timer_set_base(timer, NULL);
> - spin_unlock(&base->lock);
> - base = new_base;
> - spin_lock(&base->lock);
> - timer_set_base(timer, base);
> - }
> + /* See the comment in lock_timer_base() */
> + timer_set_base(timer, NULL);
> + spin_unlock(&base->lock);
> + base = new_base;
> + spin_lock(&base->lock);
> + timer_set_base(timer, base);
> }
>
> timer->expires = expires;
> @@ -1039,9 +1037,11 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(try_to_del_timer_sync);
> */
> int del_timer_sync(struct timer_list *timer)
> {
> -#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> + struct tvec_base *base;
> unsigned long flags;
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> +
> /*
> * If lockdep gives a backtrace here, please reference
> * the synchronization rules above.
> @@ -1051,6 +1051,12 @@ int del_timer_sync(struct timer_list *timer)
> lock_map_release(&timer->lockdep_map);
> local_irq_restore(flags);
> #endif
> +
> + /* Timer is scheduled for deletion, don't let it re-arm itself */
> + base = lock_timer_base(timer, &flags);
> + timer->sched_del = 1;
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&base->lock, flags);
I don't think this is good enough. For one thing, it doesn't handle
try_to_del_timer_sync() or even del_timer_sync() for that matter. As
that may return success when the timer happens to be running on another
CPU.
We have this:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
timerA (running)
mod_timer(timerA)
[ migrate to CPU2 ]
release timer base lock
del_timer_sync(timerA)
timer->sched_del = true
try_to_del_timer_sync(timerA)
base(CPU2)->timer != timerA
[TRUE!]
timerA (finishes)
Fail!
-- Steve
> +
> /*
> * don't use it in hardirq context, because it
> * could lead to deadlock.
> @@ -1058,8 +1064,10 @@ int del_timer_sync(struct timer_list *timer)
> WARN_ON(in_irq() && !tbase_get_irqsafe(timer->base));
> for (;;) {
> int ret = try_to_del_timer_sync(timer);
> - if (ret >= 0)
> + if (ret >= 0) {
> + timer->sched_del = 0;
> return ret;
> + }
> cpu_relax();
> }
> }
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists