From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com>
To: ganzinger@mvista.com
Cc: ingo@mvista.com,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: del_timer_sync needed for UP RT systems.
Date: 26 Apr 2005 16:55:49 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1114559749.12773.67.camel@dhcp153.mvista.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <426ED1EC.80500@mvista.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1974 bytes --]
Basically , there is a race condition in sys_timer_delete() and
posix_timer_event() .
>From sys_timer_delete() :
/*
* This keeps any tasks waiting on the spin lock from thinking
* they got something (see the lock code above).
*/
if (timer->it_process) {
if (timer->it_sigev_notify ==
(SIGEV_SIGNAL|SIGEV_THREAD_ID))
put_task_struct(timer->it_process);
timer->it_process = NULL;
}
unlock_timer(timer, flags);
/* Preemption happens here. */
release_posix_timer(timer, IT_ID_SET);
So when the timer is getting triggered , right before it takes the timer
lock, preemption happens. You finish the code above. Then your preempted
again right after unlock timer, shown above.
At this point, your triggering a timer that is half deleted, in posix_timer_fn() .
timer->it_process = NULL , so when you try to send the signal to the
timer owner you crash with an OOPS , cause the timer owner was just set
to NULL.
George, at least CC me, after all I found/documented this bug ..
Preliminary fix included ..
Daniel
On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 16:42, George Anzinger wrote:
> Ingo,
>
> In tracking down the failure of a system running the RT patch we have found a
> preemption between the time run_timer_list clears its spinlock and the call back
> function (in this case in posix-timers.c) gets its spinlock. The bad news is
> that it is possible for the timer to be released at this point leaving the call
> back code with a pointer to a bogus timer.
>
> This was/is possible, of course, in SMP systems and is why del_timer_sync()
> exists. I suspect that del_timer_sync() needs to also do the "right thing" in
> UP RT systems.
>
> This means removing the #ifdef CONFIG_SMP at about line 56 of kernel/timer.c
> thus setting up base->running_timer in all cases (or at least in SMP and RT
> cases) and also the #ifdef CONFIG_SMP around del_timer_sync() and, of course,
> the defines that redirect calls to these functions.
>
> Does this make sense?
[-- Attachment #2: fix_posix_timer_half_delete.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1550 bytes --]
Source: MontaVista Software, Inc.
MR: 11506
Type: Defect Fix
Disposition: needs submitting to LKML
Signed-off-by: Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com>
Description:
Ok, so here is the run down.. Basically , there is a race condition in
sys_timer_delete() and posix_timer_event() .
>From sys_timer_delete() :
timer->it_process = NULL;
}
unlock_timer(timer, flags);
/* Preemption happens here. */
release_posix_timer(timer, IT_ID_SET);
So when the timer is getting triggered , right before it takes the timer
lock, preemption happens. You finish the code above. Then your preempted
again right after unlock timer, shown above.
At this point, your triggering a timer that is half deleted, in posix_timer_fn() .
timer->it_process = NULL , so when you try to send the signal to the
timer owner you crash with an OOPS , because the timer owner was just set
to NULL.
Index: linux-2.6.10/kernel/posix-timers.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.10.orig/kernel/posix-timers.c 2005-04-26 17:38:25.000000000 +0000
+++ linux-2.6.10/kernel/posix-timers.c 2005-04-26 17:53:54.000000000 +0000
@@ -433,6 +433,14 @@ exit:
int posix_timer_event(struct k_itimer *timr,int si_private)
{
+ /*
+ * If it_process is NULL then this timer is
+ * in the process of being deleted. At this
+ * point we can't do very much. So we
+ * try to return gracefuly.
+ */
+ if (timr->it_process == NULL) return 1;
+
memset(&timr->sigq->info, 0, sizeof(siginfo_t));
timr->sigq->info.si_sys_private = si_private;
/*
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-04-26 23:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-04-26 23:42 George Anzinger
2005-04-26 23:55 ` Daniel Walker [this message]
2005-04-27 0:14 ` George Anzinger
2005-04-27 0:24 ` Daniel Walker
2005-04-27 0:30 ` Daniel Walker
2005-04-27 0:34 ` George Anzinger
2005-04-27 0:50 ` Daniel Walker
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1114559749.12773.67.camel@dhcp153.mvista.com \
--to=dwalker@mvista.com \
--cc=ganzinger@mvista.com \
--cc=ingo@mvista.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®