linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] timerfd: really wake up processes when timer is cancelled on clock change

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:	Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:24:08 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Max Asbock <masbock@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	tglx <tglx@...utronix.de>, kay.sievers@...y.org,
	virtuoso@...nd.org, johnstul <johnstul@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] timerfd: really wake up processes when timer is
 cancelled on clock change

On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 13:53:45 -0700 Max Asbock <masbock@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> When the system time is set the clock_was_set() function calls
> timerfd_clock_was_set() to cancel and wake up processes waiting on
> potential cancelable timerfd timers. However the wake up currently has
> no effect because in the case of timerfd_read it is dependent on
> ctx->ticks not being 0. timerfd_poll also requires ctx->ticks being non
> zero. As a consequence processes waiting on cancelable timers only get
> woken up when the timers expire. This patch fixes this by incrementing
> ctx->ticks before calling wake_up.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Max Asbock <masbock@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> 
> --- linux-3.0-rc1/fs/timerfd.c
> +++ linux-3.0-rc1.timerfd/fs/timerfd.c
> @@ -61,7 +61,9 @@ static enum hrtimer_restart timerfd_tmrp
>  
>  /*
>   * Called when the clock was set to cancel the timers in the cancel
> - * list.
> + * list. This will wake up processes waiting on these timers. The
> + * wake-up requires ctx->ticks to be non zero, therefore we increment
> + * it before calling wake_up_locked().
>   */
>  void timerfd_clock_was_set(void)
>  {
> @@ -76,6 +78,7 @@ void timerfd_clock_was_set(void)
>  		spin_lock_irqsave(&ctx->wqh.lock, flags);
>  		if (ctx->moffs.tv64 != moffs.tv64) {
>  			ctx->moffs.tv64 = KTIME_MAX;
> +			ctx->ticks++;
>  			wake_up_locked(&ctx->wqh);
>  		}
>  		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ctx->wqh.lock, flags);

Do you think this fix should be backported into -stable kernels?  If so
(or if not), why?

It sounds like it _should_ be backported.  I wonder if that will break
any apps which depend on (or work around) the current behaviour.
--
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/