Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 11 Jun 2021 14:37:40 +0200
From:   Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] posix-cpu-timers: Fix rearm racing against process
 tick
Message-ID: <20210611123740.GA143945@lothringen>
References: <20210604113159.26177-1-frederic@kernel.org>
 <20210604113159.26177-2-frederic@kernel.org>
 <20210609115400.GD104634@lothringen>
 <YMNNtOTN9u3eC0n0@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YMNNtOTN9u3eC0n0@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 01:49:08PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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?

It's part of the problem. The other part is that it must be locked in the
same sequence than arm_timer(). So yes, a lockdep assertion would already be
a good indicator that something goes wrong.

Thanks.