linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched_clock: Avoid corrupting hrtimer tree during suspend

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, 18 Jul 2014 15:42:47 -0700
From:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
CC:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched_clock: Avoid corrupting hrtimer tree during suspend

On 07/18/2014 03:38 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 07/18/14 15:25, John Stultz wrote:
>> On 07/18/2014 03:09 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>> During suspend we call sched_clock_poll() to update the epoch and
>>> accumulated time and reprogram the sched_clock_timer to fire
>>> before the next wrap-around time. Unfortunately,
>>> sched_clock_poll() doesn't restart the timer, instead it relies
>>> on the hrtimer layer to do that and during suspend we aren't
>>> calling that function from the hrtimer layer. Instead, we're
>>> reprogramming the expires time while the hrtimer is enqueued,
>>> which can cause the hrtimer tree to be corrupted. Fix this
>>> problem by updating the state via update_sched_clock() and
>>> properly restarting the timer via hrtimer_start().
>>>
>>> Fixes: a08ca5d1089d "sched_clock: Use an hrtimer instead of timer"
>>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> I also wonder if we should be restarting the timer during resume
>>> instead of suspend given that the resume path modifies the epoch.
>>> At that point timers can't run because interrupts are disabled and
>>> we don't really care if the timer fires earlier than it's supposed
>>> to anyway because it's just there to avoid rollover events, but
>>> does it seem better to do it that way? I didn't send that version
>>> because this patch is to fix the code intention, but I'm curious
>>> if anyone else feels like it should be changed.
>> Yea, starting the timer on suspend seems unintuitive to me.
>>
>> Is this something you were hoping to get in for 3.17 or is this a urgent
>> 3.16 item?
> Ok I'll send a follow up patch to cancel during suspend and start during
> resume, unless you want that to be part of this fix? It's a regression
> back to v3.13 so I would think it's urgent, although I haven't seen any
> reports on the mailing list, just reports on some of our android kernels.

If its a regression (and needs -stable backports) it needs to go in via
tip/timers/urgent, and not via the regular merge window.

Whats the additional risk -stable wise for canceling the timer during
suspend and starting it back up during resume?

thanks
-john
--
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/