timers: Move clearing of base::timer_running under base:: Lock

syzbot reported KCSAN data races vs. timer_base::timer_running being set to
NULL without holding base::lock in expire_timers().

This looks innocent and most reads are clearly not problematic, but
Frederic identified an issue which is:

 int data = 0;

 void timer_func(struct timer_list *t)
 {
    data = 1;
 }

 CPU 0                                            CPU 1
 ------------------------------                   --------------------------
 base = lock_timer_base(timer, &flags);           raw_spin_unlock(&base->lock);
 if (base->running_timer != timer)                call_timer_fn(timer, fn, baseclk);
   ret = detach_if_pending(timer, base, true);    base->running_timer = NULL;
 raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&base->lock, flags);  raw_spin_lock(&base->lock);

 x = data;

If the timer has previously executed on CPU 1 and then CPU 0 can observe
base->running_timer == NULL and returns, assuming the timer has completed,
but it's not guaranteed on all architectures. The comment for
del_timer_sync() makes that guarantee. Moving the assignment under
base->lock prevents this.

For non-RT kernel it's performance wise completely irrelevant whether the
store happens before or after taking the lock. For an RT kernel moving the
store under the lock requires an extra unlock/lock pair in the case that
there is a waiter for the timer, but that's not the end of the world.

Reported-by: syzbot+aa7c2385d46c5eba0b89@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Reported-by: syzbot+abea4558531bae1ba9fe@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Fixes: 030dcdd197d7 ("timers: Prepare support for PREEMPT_RT")
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Tested-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/87lfea7gw8.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org

0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions