linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kthread: kthread_bind fails to enforce CPU affinity (fixes kernel BUG at kernel/smpboot.c:134!)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 8 Dec 2014 21:18:59 +1100
From:	Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, tj@...nel.org, fengguang.wu@...el.com,
	rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, yuyang.du@...el.com, lkp@...org,
	yuanhan.liu@...ux.intel.com, pjt@...gle.com, bsegall@...gle.com,
	daniel@...ascale.com, subbaram@...eaurora.org,
	computersforpeace@...il.com, sp@...era.io,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kthread: kthread_bind fails to enforce CPU affinity
 (fixes kernel BUG at kernel/smpboot.c:134!)


Hi Ingo,

> So we cannot call set_task_cpu() because in the normal life time 
> of a task the ->cpu value gets set on wakeup. So if a task is 
> blocked right now, and its affinity changes, it ought to get a 
> correct ->cpu selected on wakeup. The affinity mask and the 
> current value of ->cpu getting out of sync is thus 'normal'.
> 
> (Check for example how set_cpus_allowed_ptr() works: we first set 
> the new allowed mask, then do we migrate the task away if 
> necessary.)
> 
> In the kthread_bind() case this is explicitly assumed: it only 
> calls do_set_cpus_allowed().
> 
> But obviously the bug triggers in kernel/smpboot.c, and that 
> assert shows a real bug - and your patch makes the assert go 
> away, so the question is, how did the kthread get woken up and 
> put on a runqueue without its ->cpu getting set?

I started going down this line earlier today, and found things like:

select_task_rq_fair:

        if (p->nr_cpus_allowed == 1)
                return prev_cpu;

I tried returning cpumask_first(tsk_cpus_allowed()) instead, and while
I couldn't hit the BUG I did manage to get a scheduler lockup during
testing.

At that point I thought the previous task_cpu() was somewhat ingrained
in the scheduler and came up with the patch. If not, we could go on a
hunt to see what else needs fixing.

Anton
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/