On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 13:25 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> And that will fix it. (Labels start in column zero, and a comment is
> needed here).
I blame emacs for that bad label :-)
>
> However I wonder if it would be sufficient to remove the del_timer_sync()
> call altogether and just do mod_timer() in it_real_arm().
>
> If the handler happens to be running on another CPU and if the handler
> tries to run mod_timer() _after_ the do_setitimer() has run mod_timer(),
> the handler will use the desired value of it_real_incr anyway.
>
So do you prefer a patch like the following?
--- linux-2.6.12-rc6/kernel/itimer.c.orig 2005-06-15 16:33:13.000000000 -0400
+++ linux-2.6.12-rc6/kernel/itimer.c 2005-06-15 16:42:45.000000000 -0400
@@ -118,6 +118,8 @@
*/
static inline void it_real_arm(struct task_struct *p, unsigned long interval)
{
+ unsigned long expires;
+
p->signal->it_real_value = interval; /* XXX unnecessary field?? */
if (interval == 0)
return;
@@ -127,8 +129,8 @@
* the interval requested. This could happen if
* time requested % (usecs per jiffy) is more than the usecs left
* in the current jiffy */
- p->signal->real_timer.expires = jiffies + interval + 1;
- add_timer(&p->signal->real_timer);
+ expires = jiffies + interval + 1;
+ mod_timer(&p->signal->real_timer, expires);
}
void it_real_fn(unsigned long __data)
@@ -156,8 +158,6 @@
spin_lock_irq(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
interval = tsk->signal->it_real_incr;
val = it_real_value(tsk->signal);
- if (val)
- del_timer_sync(&tsk->signal->real_timer);
tsk->signal->it_real_incr =
timeval_to_jiffies(&value->it_interval);
it_real_arm(tsk, timeval_to_jiffies(&value->it_value));
Now the question is, what happens on the following scenario?
ksoftirqd:
calls it_real_func
process:
calls do_setitimer blocks on siglock;
ksoftirqd: unlocks siglock calls it_real_arm and after it assigns
expires it takes an interrupt before calling mod_timer.
process:
calls it_real_arm and does the changes to mod_timer first.
ksoftirqd: comes back from interrupt and then calls mod_timer with the
wrong value.
This may be a small chance in hell of happening, and the result may not
be to drastic, but this is still a race condition. So far I think that
my unconditional calling of del_timer_sync, although inefficient, it
doesn't have any races.
-- Steve
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
