Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-145551-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 18:27:58 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@linutronix.de>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
	John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
	Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] posix-timers: Handle returned errors poperly in
 [i]timer_delete()
Message-ID: <20240415162758.GB27124@redhat.com>
References: <20240415130023.GA27124@redhat.com>
 <87a5luvhix.fsf@somnus>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87a5luvhix.fsf@somnus>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)

Anna-Maria, I can't really answer, I don't understand this code today ;)
That said, let me try to explain my opinion,

On 04/15, Anna-Maria Behnsen wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > On 04/15, Anna-Maria Behnsen wrote:
> >>
> >> timer_delete_hook() returns -EINVAL when the clock or the timer_del
> >> callback of the clock does not exist. This return value is not handled by
> >> the callsites timer_delete() and itimer_delete().
> >
> > IIUC this shouldn't happen? timer_delete_hook() WARN()s in this case,
> > not sure we need to return this error to userspace...
>
> This shouldn't happen, right.
>
> Even if we do not return this error to userspace, is it valid to proceed
> with the rest of the callsites?

Well, I'd say that nothing is safe after we hit the kernel problem.

But lets suppose we return EINVAL and skip list_del(&timer->list)/etc.
How can this help? What can userspace do to resolve this problem? Is it
better to "leak" this timer? I dunno.

> When it is fine to just ignore the
> -EINVAL return, then I would propose just to add a comment to the code.

Agreed!

Oleg.