[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZFPmKtFGPUQkeDEd@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2023 19:06:50 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
syzbot+5c54bd3eb218bb595aa9@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 01/20] posix-timers: Prevent RT livelock in
itimer_delete()
Le Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 08:48:56PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner a écrit :
> itimer_delete() has a retry loop when the timer is concurrently expired. On
> non-RT kernels this just spin-waits until the timer callback has
> completed. On RT kernels this is a potential livelock when the exiting task
> preempted the hrtimer soft interrupt.
>
> This only affects hrtimer based timers as Posix CPU timers cannot be
> concurrently expired. For CONFIG_POSIX_CPU_TIMERS_TASK_WORK=y this is
> obviously impossible as the task cannot run task work and exit at the same
> time. The CONFIG_POSIX_CPU_TIMERS_TASK_WORK=n (only non-RT) is prevented
> because interrupts are disabled.
But the owner of the timer is not the same as the target of the timer, right?
Though I seem to remember that we forbid setting a timer to a target outside
the current process, in which case the owner and the target are the same at
this exit stage. But I can't remember what enforces that permission in pid_for_clock()...
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists