lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jun]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Race condition in time/alarmtimer.c
Hi,

bouncing this mail because originally my mail address was mangled due to MUA misconfig.

Sorry
Marcus


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.
>
>
> Cheers
> Marcus


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-06-29 16:01    [W:0.262 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site