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

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

Message-ID: <877irkrq8a.wl%takeuchi_satoru@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Tue, 08 May 2007 11:41:57 +0900
From:	Satoru Takeuchi <takeuchi_satoru@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc:	Satoru Takeuchi <takeuchi_satoru@...fujitsu.com>,
	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>,
	Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] cpu-hotplug: Can't offline the CPU with naughty realtime	processes

At Mon, 07 May 2007 23:42:53 +1000,
Rusty Russell wrote:
> 
> 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.

Thanks, I'll do. Maybe this work will take several days including test.

BTW, how should I manage rt process having max priority as Gautham said?
He said that it's OK unless such kernel thread exists. However, currently
MAX_USER_RT_PRIORITY is equal to MAX_RT_PRIO, so user process also be able
to cause this problem. Is Srivatsa's idea 2 acceptable? Or just apply
"Shouldn't abuse highest rt proority" rule?

Thanks,

Satoru
-
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/