Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:10:14 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: stable@freebsd.org, freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: timeout/untimeout race conditions/crash [patch] Message-ID: <20080317201014.GA67856@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <200803171127.20561.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <20080315024114.GD67856@elvis.mu.org> <200803171127.20561.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> [080317 09:43] wrote: > > This is not a bug. Don't use untimeout(9) as it is not guaranteed to be > reliable. Instead, use callout_*(). Your patch doesn't solve any races as > the driver detach routine needs to use callout_drain() and not just > callout_stop/untimeout anyways. Fix your broken drivers. I understand that some old Giant locked code can issue timeout/untimeout without Giant held, which would certainly cause this issue to happen and is uncorrectable, however, this is with completely Giant locked code. We are not trying to use timeout(9) for mpsafe code, this is old code and relies upon Giant. Giant locked code should be timeout/untimeout safe. As explained in my email, there exists a condition where the Giant locked code can have a timer fire even though proper Giant locking is observed. For a Giant locked subsystem, one should be able to have the following code work: mtx_lock(&Giant); /* formerly spl higher than softclock */ untimeout(&func, arg, &sc->handle); free(sc); mtx_unlock(&Giant); /* formerly splx() */ Normally splsoftclock would completely block the timeout from firing and this sort of code would be safe. It is no longer safe due to a BUG in the way that Giant is used. Please reread the original mail to better understand the synopsis of the problem. thank you, -Alfred
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080317201014.GA67856>