lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jul]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Race condition in time/alarmtimer.c
On 06/29/2013 06:47 AM, Marcus Gelderie wrote:
> On Mo, Jun 24, 2013 at 09:12:03PM +0200, Marcus Gelderie wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> there seems to be a race condition in kernel/time/alarmtimer.c
>>
>> More specifically, the following function (line numbers correspond to actual file):
>>
>> 584 static int alarmtimer_do_nsleep(struct alarm *alarm, ktime_t absexp)
>> 585 {
>> 586 alarm->data = (void *)current;
>> 587 do {
>> 588 set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
>> 589 alarm_start(alarm, absexp);
>> 590 if (likely(alarm->data))
>> 591 schedule();
>> 592
>> 593 alarm_cancel(alarm);
>> 594 } while (alarm->data && !signal_pending(current));
>> 595
>> 596 __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
>> 597
>> 598 return (alarm->data == NULL);
>> 599 }
>>
>> has a race: If the task is preempted after set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE)
>> but before the alarm is started in the next line, the task never wakes up.
>>
>> Swapping both lines is not an option either, because then the alarm might trigger before
>> the thread sets itself to TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, thereby loosing the wakeup.
>>
>> A spinlock would disable preemption and protect alarm->data against the race from another CPU.
>> We could wrap lines 588 and 589 with a spin lock. Then the wakeup code would also aquire the
>> lock, of course. The lock could be attached to struct alarm.
>>
>> An alternative would be a waitqueue, of course.
>>
>> If folks agree with me, I will provide a patch.

So does this race also affect the hrtimer do_nanosleep?

thanks
-john




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-07-22 21:21    [W:0.053 / U:0.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site