Re: [RFC][PATCH] timers: Add del_time_free() to be called before freeing timers

[Steven Rostedt]

On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 17:58:09 -0700
Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> >>> Add a del_timer_free() that not only does a del_timer_sync() but will mark  
> >>
> >> This limits the use case to situations where del_timer_sync() can actually
> >> be called. There is, however, code where this is not possible.
> >> Specifically, it doesn't work if the code triggered with the timer uses a
> >> lock, and del_timer() is also called under that same lock. An example for
> >> that is the code in sound/synth/emux/emux.c. How do you suggest to handle
> >> that situation ?  
> > 
> > Easy. Tell me how that situation is not a bug?
> >   
> 
> Sure, fixing the problem is of course the right thing to do. But replacing
> del_timer() with your suggested version of del_timer_free() doesn't work

I meant replacing the entire block with del_timer_free().

diff --git a/sound/synth/emux/emux.c b/sound/synth/emux/emux.c
index 5ed8e36d2e04..f631e090e074 100644
--- a/sound/synth/emux/emux.c
+++ b/sound/synth/emux/emux.c
@@ -131,10 +131,7 @@ int snd_emux_free(struct snd_emux *emu)
 	if (! emu)
 		return -EINVAL;
 
-	spin_lock_irqsave(&emu->voice_lock, flags);
-	if (emu->timer_active)
-		del_timer(&emu->tlist);
-	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&emu->voice_lock, flags);
+	del_timer_free(&emu->tlist);
 
 	snd_emux_proc_free(emu);
 	snd_emux_delete_virmidi(emu);

It doesn't hurt to delete it if it wasn't queued. I'm not sure what the
dance with spinlocks are all about.

The above may actually be enough. I don't see where the timer could be
enqueued again after that.

That code goes back to original git history, so it was probably trying to
do it's own del_timer_sync() albeit poorly.

> with this code because it would deadlock. Sure, that would not fix the
> underlying problem anyway, but that isn't the point I was trying to make:
> I think it would be beneficial to be able to replace del_timer() with a
> version that can not result in deadlocks but would still identify problems
> such as the one in the code in emux.c.
> 
> Can we have del_timer_free() and del_timer_sync_free() ? Or am I missing
> something and that doesn't really make sense ?

No, that doesn't make sense.

-- Steve