linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/core: simpler function for sched

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:   Wed, 7 Sep 2016 11:22:28 +0800
From:   chengchao <chengchao@...acom.com>
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:     mingo@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, tj@...nel.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, chris@...is-wilson.co.uk,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/core: simpler function for sched_exec migration

Oleg, thank you very much.

on 09/06/2016 11:22 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/06, chengchao wrote:
>>
>> the key point is for CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y,
>> ...
>> it is too much overhead for one task(fork()+exec()), isn't it?
> 
> Yes, yes, I see, this is suboptimal. Not sure we actually do care,
> but yes, perhaps another helper which migrates the current task makes
> sense, I dunno.

for CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y, this patch wants the stopper thread can migrate the current 
successfully instead of doing nothing.

> 
> But,
> 
>>> stop_one_cpu_sync() assumes that cpu == smp_processor_id/task_cpu(current),
>>> and thus the stopper thread should preempt us at least after schedule()
>>> (if CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE), so we do not need to synchronize.
>>>
>>    yes. the stop_one_cpu_sync is not a good name, stop_one_cpu_schedule is better?  
>> there is nothing about synchronization.
> 
> We need to synchronize with the stopper to ensure it can't touch
> cpu_stop_work on stack after stop_one_cpu_sync() returns, and

yes, you are right.

> 
>>> But this is not necessarily true? This task can migrate to another CPU
>>> before cpu_stop_queue_work() ?
>>>
>>   before sched_exec() calls stop_one_cpu()/cpu_stop_queue_work(), this
>> task(current) cannot migrate  to another cpu,because this task is running
>> on the cpu.
> 
> Why? The running task can migrate to another CPU at any moment. Unless it
> runs with preemption disabled or CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y.

yes, this patch focused the CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y at the beginning, so I didn't
pay more attention to the CONFIG_PREEMPT=y and CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY=y.

> 
> And this means that cpu_stop_queue_work() can queue the work on another
> CPU != smp_processor_id(), and in this case the kernel can crash because
> the pending cpu_stop_work can be overwritten right after return.
> 
> So you need something like
> 
> 	void stop_one_cpu_sync(cpu_stop_fn_t fn, void *arg)
> 	{
> 		struct cpu_stop_work work = { .fn = fn, .arg = arg, .done = NULL };
> 
> 		preempt_disable();
> 		cpu_stop_queue_work(raw_smp_processor_id(), &work);
> 		preempt_enable_no_resched();
> 		schedule();
> 	}
>
 
> or I am totally confused. Note that it doesn't (and shouldn't) have
> the "int cpu" argument.
> 


if preempt happens after preempt_enable_no_resched(), there is still risky that the 
stop_one_cpu_sync() returns before the stopper thread can use cpu_stop_work safely.
as you said previously.

thus, I modify the patch:

int stop_one_cpu(unsigned int cpu, cpu_stop_fn_t fn, void *arg)
{
        struct cpu_stop_done done;
        struct cpu_stop_work work = { .fn = fn, .arg = arg, .done = &done };

        cpu_stop_init_done(&done, 1);
        if (!cpu_stop_queue_work(cpu, &work))
                return -ENOENT;

#if defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE)
	/*
         * let the stopper thread runs as soon as possible,
         * and keep current TASK_RUNNING.
         */
	scheudle();
#endif	
        wait_for_completion(&done.completion);
        return done.ret;
}

remove the new function stop_one_cpu_sync(). When I posted this patch, I didn't want to
modify the stop_one_cpu(), because there are many functions to call the stop_one_cpu().
but now, I think it's good place to modify.

Any suggestions? thanks again.


> Oleg.
> 
>