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  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:   Wed, 29 Nov 2017 16:30:27 +0100
From:   Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
To:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, keescook@...omium.org,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
Subject: [PATCH v3 02/36] hrtimer: Correct blantanly wrong comment

From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>

The protection of a hrtimer which runs its callback against migration to a
different CPU has nothing to do with hard interrupt context.

The protection against migration of a hrtimer running the expiry callback
is the pointer in the cpu_base which holds a pointer to the currently
running timer. This pointer is evaluated in the code which potentially
switches the timer base and makes sure it's kept on the CPU on which the
callback is running.

Reported-by: Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
---
 kernel/time/hrtimer.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/time/hrtimer.c b/kernel/time/hrtimer.c
index 69d203d8b12d..aee49c0c58b9 100644
--- a/kernel/time/hrtimer.c
+++ b/kernel/time/hrtimer.c
@@ -1195,9 +1195,9 @@ static void __run_hrtimer(struct hrtimer_cpu_base *cpu_base,
 		timer->is_rel = false;
 
 	/*
-	 * Because we run timers from hardirq context, there is no chance
-	 * they get migrated to another cpu, therefore its safe to unlock
-	 * the timer base.
+	 * The timer is marked as running in the cpu base, so it is
+	 * protected against migration to a different CPU even if the lock
+	 * is dropped.
 	 */
 	raw_spin_unlock(&cpu_base->lock);
 	trace_hrtimer_expire_entry(timer, now);
-- 
2.11.0

Powered by blists - more mailing lists