[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YTOF8VYTYNFYpB7O@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2021 14:42:57 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [possible bug] missed wakeup in do_sigtimedwait()?
do_sigtimedwait():
spin_lock_irq(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
sig = dequeue_signal(tsk, &mask, info);
nope, nothing posted yet
if (!sig && timeout) {
/*
* None ready, temporarily unblock those we're interested
* while we are sleeping in so that we'll be awakened when
* they arrive. Unblocking is always fine, we can avoid
* set_current_blocked().
*/
tsk->real_blocked = tsk->blocked;
sigandsets(&tsk->blocked, &tsk->blocked, &mask);
recalc_sigpending();
spin_unlock_irq(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
... and now somebody sends us a signal. signal_wake_up() does nothing,
since we are still in TASK_RUNNING at that point
__set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
ret = freezable_schedule_hrtimeout_range(to, tsk->timer_slack_ns,
HRTIMER_MODE_REL);
... and we go to sleep for the duration of timeout or until the next
signal to arrive.
spin_lock_irq(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
__set_task_blocked(tsk, &tsk->real_blocked);
sigemptyset(&tsk->real_blocked);
sig = dequeue_signal(tsk, &mask, info);
... now we finally dequeue the sucker that had been pending through the
entire timeout period.
}
spin_unlock_irq(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
Looks like that __set_current_state() should've been done before dropping
the siglock. Am I missing something subtle here? It's not a terribly
wide window, but it's not impossible to hit e.g. on KVM and it does look
like a missed wakeup problem... For that matter, spin_unlock_irq() might
run irq handlers, so it's not impossible to hit on the real hardware either.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists