linux-kernel - [PATCH v4 02/36] hrtimer: Correct blantanly wrong comment

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]

Message-Id: <20171221104205.7269-3-anna-maria@linutronix.de>
Date:   Thu, 21 Dec 2017 11:41:31 +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 v4 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