This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
timers: Move clearing of base::timer_running under base:: Lock
to the 5.4-stable tree which can be found at:
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
The filename of the patch is:
timers-move-clearing-of-base-timer_running-under-base-lock.patch
and it can be found in the queue-5.4 subdirectory.
If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
please let <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> know about it.
>From bb7262b295472eb6858b5c49893954794027cd84 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2020 22:40:07 +0100
Subject: timers: Move clearing of base::timer_running under base:: Lock
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
commit bb7262b295472eb6858b5c49893954794027cd84 upstream.
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Reported-by: syzbot+abea4558531bae1ba9fe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fixes: 030dcdd197d7 ("timers: Prepare support for PREEMPT_RT")
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/87lfea7gw8.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
kernel/time/timer.c | 6 ++++--
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/time/timer.c
+++ b/kernel/time/timer.c
@@ -1269,8 +1269,10 @@ static inline void timer_base_unlock_exp
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);
}
}
@@ -1454,14 +1456,14 @@ static void expire_timers(struct timer_b
if (timer->flags & TIMER_IRQSAFE) {
raw_spin_unlock(&base->lock);
call_timer_fn(timer, fn, baseclk);
- 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, baseclk);
+ raw_spin_lock_irq(&base->lock);
base->running_timer = NULL;
timer_sync_wait_running(base);
- raw_spin_lock_irq(&base->lock);
}
}
}
Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx are
queue-5.4/timers-move-clearing-of-base-timer_running-under-base-lock.patch
