linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] wait: fix false timeouts when using wait_event

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Tue, 7 May 2013 16:12:48 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>
Cc:	Imre Deak <imre.deak@...el.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wait: fix false timeouts when using
 wait_event_timeout()

On Thu, 2 May 2013 11:36:56 +0200 Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch> wrote:

> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Imre Deak <imre.deak@...el.com> wrote:
> > Many callers of the wait_event_timeout() and
> > wait_event_interruptible_timeout() expect that the return value will be
> > positive if the specified condition becomes true before the timeout
> > elapses. However, at the moment this isn't guaranteed. If the wake-up
> > handler is delayed enough, the time remaining until timeout will be
> > calculated as 0 - and passed back as a return value - even if the
> > condition became true before the timeout has passed.
> >
> > Fix this by returning at least 1 if the condition becomes true. This
> > semantic is in line with what wait_for_condition_timeout() does; see
> > commit bb10ed09 - "sched: fix wait_for_completion_timeout() spurious
> > failure under heavy load".
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@...el.com>
> 
> We have 3 instances of this bug in drm/i915. One case even where we
> switch between the interruptible and not interruptible
> wait_event_timeout variants, foolishly presuming they have the same
> semantics. I very much like this.

Let's think about scheduling this fix.

Are any of the bugs which we expect this patch fixes serious enough to
warrant merging it into 3.10?  And -stable?
--
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/