linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] timers: Add del_time_free() to be called before freeing timers

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: <63d4c8d8-89c6-33ed-8178-be9ea86e53b9@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Thu, 7 Apr 2022 17:58:09 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, jstultz@...gle.com,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
        Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@...il.com>,
        Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@...il.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] timers: Add del_time_free() to be called before
 freeing timers

On 4/7/22 15:51, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 14:58:02 -0700
> Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> 
>>> Add a del_timer_free() that not only does a del_timer_sync() but will mark
>>
>> This limits the use case to situations where del_timer_sync() can actually
>> be called. There is, however, code where this is not possible.
>> Specifically, it doesn't work if the code triggered with the timer uses a
>> lock, and del_timer() is also called under that same lock. An example for
>> that is the code in sound/synth/emux/emux.c. How do you suggest to handle
>> that situation ?
> 
> Easy. Tell me how that situation is not a bug?
> 

Sure, fixing the problem is of course the right thing to do. But replacing
del_timer() with your suggested version of del_timer_free() doesn't work
with this code because it would deadlock. Sure, that would not fix the
underlying problem anyway, but that isn't the point I was trying to make:
I think it would be beneficial to be able to replace del_timer() with a
version that can not result in deadlocks but would still identify problems
such as the one in the code in emux.c.

Can we have del_timer_free() and del_timer_sync_free() ? Or am I missing
something and that doesn't really make sense ?

Thanks,
Guenter

> That code you point out at emux.c looks extremely buggy as well. In other
> words, if you can't call del_timer_free() for the reason you mention above,
> the code is very likely to have race conditions. I cannot think of a
> situation that it is safe to do this.
> 
> In fact, I think that just replacing that with del_timer_free() may be good
> enough. At least to show why it blows up later. I'm confused in what they
> are doing by taking that lock. I can see:
> 
> 	CPU1				CPU2
> 	----				----
> 				    snd_emux_timer_callback()
>      spin_lock(voice_lock)
>      if (timer_active)
> 	del_timer()
>      spin_unlock(voice_lock)
> 
> 				    [..]
> 				    	do_again++
> 				    [..]
> 				    if (do_again) {
> 					mod_timer()
> 					timer_active = 1;
> 				    }
> 
>      [..]
>      free(emu);
>  >
> BOOM!!
> 
> Hmm, perhaps I should change the code in __mod_timer() to:
> 
> 	if (WARN_ON(timer->flags & TIMER_FREED))
> 		return;
> 
> To not rearm it.
> 
> -- Steve