linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/5] sched/core: Add debug code to catch missing update_rq

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:	Tue, 17 May 2016 13:24:15 +0100
From:	Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
To:	Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@...el.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/5] sched/core: Add debug code to catch missing
 update_rq_clock()

On Tue, 17 May, at 04:11:09AM, Yuyang Du wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 10:46:38AM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > 
> > No because if someone calls rq_clock() immediately after __schedule(),
> > or even immediately after we clear RQCF_ACT_SKIP in __schedule(), we
> > should trigger a warning since the clock has not actually been
> > updated.
> 
> Well, I don't know how concurrent it can be, but aren't both update
> and read synchronized by rq->lock? So I don't understand the latter
> case, and the former should be addressed (missing its own update?).

I'm not talking about concurrency; when I said "someone" above, I was
referring to code.

So, if the code looks like the following, either now or in the future,

static void __schedule(bool preempt)
{
	...
	/* Clear RQCF_ACT_SKIP */
	rq->clock_update_flags = 0;
	...
	delta = rq_clock();
}

I would expect to see a warning triggered, because we've read the rq
clock outside of the code area where we know it's safe to do so
without a clock update.

The solution for that bug may be as simple as rearranging the code,

	delta = rq_clock();
	...
	rq->clock_update_flags = 0;

but we definitely want to catch such bugs in the first instance.