Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <0000000000009d5daa05ed9815fa@google.com> <20221117024511.3606-1-hdanton@sina.com>
 <20221117125523.3783-1-hdanton@sina.com> <87wn7tlg4n.ffs@tglx> <CABBYNZKnCyLkRKH=DFZbDSL=m0O5PUVkQjtiB0xpCZM7v78HmQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABBYNZKnCyLkRKH=DFZbDSL=m0O5PUVkQjtiB0xpCZM7v78HmQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 17 Nov 2022 13:16:08 -0800
Message-ID: <CABBYNZJYbzX9xoqU8_KEArTJ2=5eMTiDTjMbNjEYNVmi1rkp+A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [syzbot] WARNING in call_timer_fn
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>,
        syzbot <syzbot+6fb78d577e89e69602f9@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pbonzini@redhat.com,
        syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com,
        Steven Rostedt <rosted@goodmis.org>,
        Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi Tetsuo,

On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 1:04 PM Luiz Augusto von Dentz
<luiz.dentz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 8:06 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 17 2022 at 20:55, Hillf Danton wrote:
> > > On 17 Nov 2022 12:54:28 +0100 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> > >>
> > >> The work has been canceled already before in the same function and there
> > >> are some more delayed works which can trigger this.
> > >>
> > >> So no, this whole close_sync() function is prone to teardown races and
> > >> just slapping a single cancel here without deeper analysis does not cut
> > >> it.
> > >
> > > Agree.
> > >
> > > A set of sync cancelations can do the job, given what is defined in struct
> > > hci_dev wrt workqueue.
> >
> > It's only part of the solution because you also have to prevent that
> > work is queued from other parts of the code....
>
> I thought we would have something similar to shutdown_timer (e.g.
> shutdown_delayed_work) so we can safely free its object/struct, at
> least that was the impression I got when discussing with Steven.

Wasn't the following patch suppose to address such problem:

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bluetooth/bluetooth-next.git/commit/?id=deee93d13d385103205879a8a0915036ecd83261

It was merged in the last pull request to net-next:

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bluetooth/bluetooth-next.git/commit/?id=a507ea32b9c2c407012bf89109ac0cf89fae313c

-- 
Luiz Augusto von Dentz