linux-kernel - Re: Deleting timers

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 2 Jul 2009 18:02:00 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: Deleting timers

On 07/02, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:50:54 -0400 (EDT) Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Thomas:
> >
> > I'm not Thomas, but I play one on TV.
> >
> > > The major difference -- in fact, almost the only difference -- between
> > > del_timer() and try_to_del_timer_sync() is that try_to_del_timer_sync
> > > returns a special code (-1) if the timer couldn't be deleted because it
> > > is currently running, whereas del_timer doesn't check this.
> >
> > And del_timer() is heaps faster against a not-pending timer.  I have a
> > vague memory that there are some callsites which do this quite a lot.
> >
> > And try_to_del_timer_sync() forgot to do timer_stats_timer_clear_start_info().
> >
> > > Furthermore, the "_sync" in the name suggests that
> > > try_to_del_timer_sync will wait until a running timer has finished,
> > > which it clearly does not do.
> >
> > yup.

Yes, try_to_del_timer_sync() never waits exactly because it fails if the
timer is running.

> > > Despite these facts, the kerneldoc for try_to_del_timer_sync states
> > > that it must not be called in interrupt context.  Why not?  Isn't that
> > > advice simply wrong?
> >
> > : commit fd450b7318b75343fd76b3d95416853e34e72c95
> > : Author:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
> > : AuthorDate: Thu Jun 23 00:08:59 2005 -0700
> > : Commit:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...970.osdl.org>
> > : CommitDate: Thu Jun 23 09:45:16 2005 -0700
> > :
> > :     [PATCH] timers: introduce try_to_del_timer_sync()
> > :
> > :     This patch splits del_timer_sync() into 2 functions.  The new one,
> > :     try_to_del_timer_sync(), returns -1 when it hits executing timer.
> > :
> > :     It can be used in interrupt context, or when the caller hold locks which
> > :     can prevent completion of the timer's handler.
> > :
> > :     NOTE.  Currently it can't be used in interrupt context in UP case, because
> > :     ->running_timer is used only with CONFIG_SMP.
> > :
> > :     Should the need arise, it is possible to kill #ifdef CONFIG_SMP in
> > :     set_running_timer(), it is cheap.
> > :
> >
> > The changelog is somewhat vodka-fogged, but there is a bit of a problem
> > there.

Yeah. try_to_del_timer_sync() should not be used in interrupt context
because in UP case it is equal to del_timer(), this is not what we want.

But with CONFIG_SMP it can work from any context.

> Okay, thanks.  That makes sense.
>
> > > With this in mind, would there be any objection if I renamed it to
> > > try_to_del_timer(),

Not sure I understand why try_to_del_timer is better...

try_to_del_timer_sync() means: try to del_timer_sync(), that is why
"_sync" ;)

But I don't really care.

> removed the comment forbidding it to be used in
> > > interrupt context, and made it available even on non-SMP builds?
> >
> > Sounds sane to me, if the set_running_timer() change is also made.

Yes, set_running_timer() should be changed, and

	# define try_to_del_timer_sync(t)       del_timer(t)

in timer.h should be killed. I think this makes sense.

Oleg.

--
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/