Re: [PATCH 1/6] posix-cpu-timers: Fix rearm racing against process tick

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 01:54:00PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 01:31:54PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Since the process wide cputime counter is started locklessly from
> > posix_cpu_timer_rearm(), it can be concurrently stopped by operations
> > on other timers from the same thread group, such as in the following
> > unlucky scenario:
> > 
> >          CPU 0                                CPU 1
> >          -----                                -----
> >                                            timer_settime(TIMER B)
> >    posix_cpu_timer_rearm(TIMER A)
> >        cpu_clock_sample_group()
> >            (pct->timers_active already true)
> > 
> >                                            handle_posix_cpu_timers()
> >                                                check_process_timers()
> >                                                    stop_process_timers()
> >                                                        pct->timers_active = false
> >        arm_timer(TIMER A)
> > 
> >    tick -> run_posix_cpu_timers()
> >        // sees !pct->timers_active, ignore
> >        // our TIMER A
> > 
> > Fix this with simply locking process wide cputime counting start and
> > timer arm in the same block.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
> > Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
> > Cc: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
> 
> Fixes: 60f2ceaa8111 ("posix-cpu-timers: Remove unnecessary locking around cpu_clock_sample_group")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org

Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>


Problem seems to be calling cpu_clock_sample_group(.start = true)
without sighand locked. Do we want a lockdep assertion for that?