linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] softirq: Provide a handshake for canceling tasklets via polling

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: <20250915073933.L7UOtfkj@linutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2025 09:39:33 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
Cc: linux-rt-devel@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] softirq: Provide a handshake for canceling
 tasklets via polling

On 2025-09-05 18:15:01 [+0800], Hillf Danton wrote:
> 	CPU0			CPU1
> 	----			----
> 	lock A
> 				tasklet C callback
> 				lock A
> 	cancel tasklet B
> 	DEADLOCK-01
> 
> After this work could DEADLOCK-01 be triggered, given no chance for DEADLOCK-02 ?
> 
> 	CPU2			CPU3
> 	----			----
> 	lock A
> 				timer C callback
> 				lock A
> 	timer_delete_sync(timer B)
> 	DEADLOCK-02

You are not supposed to acquire the lock, that is also acquired in the
callback, while canceling the timer/ tasklet.
Tell me please, how is this relevant?

If lock A is acquired on CPU0/ 2 then tasklet/ timer on CPU1/ 3 can't
make progress. Now CPU0/ 2 waits for the callback to complete. This
deadlocks as of today regardless of PREEMPT_RT and this change.

The difference is that !RT requires two CPU for this to happen while RT
is efficient and can trigger this with just one CPU.

Sebastian