netdev - Re: deadlocks if use htb

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: <20090115105417.GG5461@ff.dom.local>
Date:	Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:54:17 +0000
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	Denys Fedoryschenko <denys@...p.net.lb>,
	Chris Caputo <ccaputo@....net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Badalian Vyacheslav <slavon@...telecom.ru>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: deadlocks if use htb

On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:46:48AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 09:01 +0000, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
...
> > spin_lock
> > (not this hrtimer's anymore)
> > __remove_hrtimer
> > list_add_tail			enqueue_hrtimer
> > 
> 
> (looking at .28 code)
> 
> run_hrtimer_pending() reads like:
> 
> while (pending timers) {
>   __remove_hrtimer(timer, HRTIMER_STATE_CALLBACK);
>   spin_unlock(&cpu_base->lock);
> 
>   fn(timer);
> 
>   spin_lock(&cpu_base->lock);
>   timer->state &= ~HRTIMER_STATE_CALLBACK; // _should_ result in HRTIMER_STATE_INACTIVE
>   if (HRTIMER_RESTART)
>     re-queue
>   else if (timer->state != INACTIVE) {
>     // so another cpu re-queued this timer _while_ we were executing it.
>     if (timer is first && !reprogramm) {
>       __remove_hrtimer(timer, HRTIMER_STATE_PENDING);
>       list_add_tail(timer, &cb_pending);
>     }
>   } 
> }
> 
> So in the window where we drop the lock, one can, as you said, have
> another cpu requeue the timer, but the rb_entry and list_entry are free,
> so it should not cause the data corruption we're seeing.
> 

Can't they be enqueued to the list (without a lock) and rbtree at the
same time? Then removing is done for the list only?

Jarek P. 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html