linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] cpu-hotplug: Can't offline the CPU with naughty realtime processes

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-Id: <1178545373.28438.7.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Mon, 07 May 2007 23:42:53 +1000
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	Satoru Takeuchi <takeuchi_satoru@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
	Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@....linux.org.uk>,
	Nathan Lynch <nathanl@...tin.ibm.com>,
	Joel Schopp <jschopp@...tin.ibm.com>,
	Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] cpu-hotplug: Can't offline the CPU with naughty realtime
	processes

On Mon, 2007-05-07 at 19:10 +0900, Satoru Takeuchi wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I found a bug on 2.6.21 cpu-hotplug code.
> 
> When process A on CPU0 try to offline the CPU1 on which the process B,
> realtime process (its task->policy == SCHED_FIFO or SCHED_RR) running
> without sleep or yield, both CPU0 and CPU1 get hang. It's because of
> the following code on __stop_machine_run().
> 
> struct task_struct *__stop_machine_run(int (*fn)(void *), void *data,
> 				       unsigned int cpu)
> {
> 	...
> 	p = kthread_create(do_stop, &smdata, "kstopmachine");
> 	if (!IS_ERR(p)) {
> 		kthread_bind(p, cpu);
> 		wake_up_process(p);
> 		wait_for_completion(&smdata.done);
> 	}
> 	...
> }
> 
> kstopmachine is created, bound to the CPU1, and woken up here, but
> this process can't start to run because reschedule doesn't occur on
> CPU1. Hence CPU0 also be able to run because it's waiting completion
> of CPU1's offline work.

Yes, we should probably move the set_scheduler call in stop_machine
(where the thread up-prioritizes itself) to before wake_up_process(p),
to avoid this happening.

Others have suggested we use the freezer; I've always distrusted that
code.  It's much trickier than stop_machine().

I look forward to your patch!
Rusty.

-
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/