[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZDBin2ZQwc69hGX4@lothringen>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2023 20:36:15 +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
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.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists