linux-kernel - Re: WARNING in timer_wait

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: <ZDCEcNb8KATIjvBv@localhost.localdomain>
Date:   Fri, 7 Apr 2023 23:00:32 +0200
From:   Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
        syzbot <syzbot+3b14b2ed9b3d06dcaa07@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com,
        Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
        Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: WARNING in timer_wait_running

Le Fri, Apr 07, 2023 at 09:27:40PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner a écrit :
> On Fri, Apr 07 2023 at 20:36, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Apr 07, 2023 at 07:47:40PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 07 2023 at 13:50, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Apr 07, 2023 at 10:44:22AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> >> Now memory came back. The problem with posix CPU timers is that it is
> >> >> not really known to the other side which task is actually doing the
> >> >> expiry. For process wide timers this could be any task in the process.
> >> >> 
> >> >> For hrtimers this works because the expiring context is known.
> >> >
> >> > So if posix_cpu_timer_del() were to clear ctmr->pid to NULL and then
> >> > delay put_pid() with RCU, we could retrieve that information without
> >> > holding the timer lock (with appropriate RCU accesses all around).
> >> 
> >> No, you can't. This only gives you the process, but the expiry might run
> >> on any task of that. To make that work you need a mutex in sighand.
> >
> > Duh right missed that. Ok will try.
> 
> But that's nasty as well as this can race against exec/exit and you can't
> hold sighand lock when acquiring the mutex.
> 
> The mutex needs to be per task and held by the task which runs the
> expiry task work.
> 
> Something like the completely untested below. You get the idea though.

For something untested, it looks quite right!

Thanks.