1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
|
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2022 16:50:05 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 349/351] timers: Move clearing of base::timer_running under
base:: Lock
Origin: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/rt/linux-stable-rt.git/commit?id=eee43f1aec23fc7a8d80e59c805ddfeacfe1eac5
Upstream commit bb7262b295472eb6858b5c49893954794027cd84
syzbot reported KCSAN data races vs. timer_base::timer_running being set to
NULL without holding base::lock in expire_timers().
This looks innocent and most reads are clearly not problematic, but
Frederic identified an issue which is:
int data = 0;
void timer_func(struct timer_list *t)
{
data = 1;
}
CPU 0 CPU 1
------------------------------ --------------------------
base = lock_timer_base(timer, &flags); raw_spin_unlock(&base->lock);
if (base->running_timer != timer) call_timer_fn(timer, fn, baseclk);
ret = detach_if_pending(timer, base, true); base->running_timer = NULL;
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&base->lock, flags); raw_spin_lock(&base->lock);
x = data;
If the timer has previously executed on CPU 1 and then CPU 0 can observe
base->running_timer == NULL and returns, assuming the timer has completed,
but it's not guaranteed on all architectures. The comment for
del_timer_sync() makes that guarantee. Moving the assignment under
base->lock prevents this.
For non-RT kernel it's performance wise completely irrelevant whether the
store happens before or after taking the lock. For an RT kernel moving the
store under the lock requires an extra unlock/lock pair in the case that
there is a waiter for the timer, but that's not the end of the world.
Reported-by: syzbot+aa7c2385d46c5eba0b89@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Reported-by: syzbot+abea4558531bae1ba9fe@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Fixes: 030dcdd197d7 ("timers: Prepare support for PREEMPT_RT")
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Tested-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/87lfea7gw8.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Wagner <wagi@monom.org>
---
kernel/time/timer.c | 6 ++++--
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/time/timer.c b/kernel/time/timer.c
index b859ecf6424b..603985720f54 100644
--- a/kernel/time/timer.c
+++ b/kernel/time/timer.c
@@ -1282,8 +1282,10 @@ static inline void timer_base_unlock_expiry(struct timer_base *base)
static void timer_sync_wait_running(struct timer_base *base)
{
if (atomic_read(&base->timer_waiters)) {
+ raw_spin_unlock_irq(&base->lock);
spin_unlock(&base->expiry_lock);
spin_lock(&base->expiry_lock);
+ raw_spin_lock_irq(&base->lock);
}
}
@@ -1458,14 +1460,14 @@ static void expire_timers(struct timer_base *base, struct hlist_head *head)
if (timer->flags & TIMER_IRQSAFE) {
raw_spin_unlock(&base->lock);
call_timer_fn(timer, fn);
- base->running_timer = NULL;
raw_spin_lock(&base->lock);
+ base->running_timer = NULL;
} else {
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&base->lock);
call_timer_fn(timer, fn);
+ raw_spin_lock_irq(&base->lock);
base->running_timer = NULL;
timer_sync_wait_running(base);
- raw_spin_lock_irq(&base->lock);
}
}
}
|
