linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched: Warn if we fail to migrate a task

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, 29 May 2018 12:40:50 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched: Warn if we fail to migrate a task

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 08:59:32AM -0700, Paul Burton wrote:

> I agree userspace shouldn't need to care about this but in my case
> (using the test program I linked from the previous patch) this triggers
> whilst the CPU is being brought online, not taken offline. That means
> migrate_tasks() is not involved, and we actually just return from here
> back out from a sched_setaffinity syscall & continue running the user
> task on a CPU that is no longer present in the task's cpus_allowed.
> 
> I can't think of a good qualifier to limit the warning to only trigger
> in that scenario though, so in reality perhaps we're best to just trust
> that with patch 1 applied the problem will go away.

Yeah, I'm struggling too.. re-taking task_rq_lock and testing if
task_cpu(p) is inside it's own cpus_allowed (which at that time might be
different from new_mask) might be the best we can do, but it is fairly
expensive for a sanity check.