linux-kernel - [patch] sched: add locking when update the task_group's cfs

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b040c32a0811182248s1174c82avf44c720ae2d14804@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:48:45 -0800
From:	Ken Chen <kenchen@...gle.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [patch] sched: add locking when update the task_group's cfs_rq[] 
	array.

add locking when update the task_group's cfs_rq[] array.  tg_shares_up()
can be potentially executed concurrently on multiple CPUs with overlaping
cpu mask depending on where task_cpu() was when a task got woken up.  Lack
of any locking while redistribute tg->shares over cfs_rq[] array opens up
a large window for conflict updates and utimately cause corruptions to the
integrity of per cpu cfs_rq shares. Add a tg_lock to protect the operations.


Signed-off-by: Ken Chen <kenchen@...gle.com>

diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
index 1ff78b6..907a44e 100644
--- a/kernel/sched.c
+++ b/kernel/sched.c
@@ -267,6 +267,8 @@ struct task_group {
 	/* runqueue "owned" by this group on each cpu */
 	struct cfs_rq **cfs_rq;
 	unsigned long shares;
+	/* protect integrity of per-cpu cfs_rq[i]->shares */
+	spinlock_t tg_lock;
 #endif

 #ifdef CONFIG_RT_GROUP_SCHED
@@ -1493,13 +1495,11 @@ update_group_shares_cpu
 	if (abs(shares - tg->se[cpu]->load.weight) >
 			sysctl_sched_shares_thresh) {
 		struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
-		unsigned long flags;

-		spin_lock_irqsave(&rq->lock, flags);
+		spin_lock(&rq->lock);
 		tg->cfs_rq[cpu]->shares = shares;
-
 		__set_se_shares(tg->se[cpu], shares);
-		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rq->lock, flags);
+		spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
 	}
 }

@@ -1513,8 +1513,12 @@ static int tg_shares_up
 	unsigned long weight, rq_weight = 0;
 	unsigned long shares = 0;
 	struct sched_domain *sd = data;
+	unsigned long flags;
 	int i;

+	if (!spin_trylock_irqsave(&tg->tg_lock, flags))
+		return 0;
+
 	for_each_cpu_mask(i, sd->span) {
 		/*
 		 * If there are currently no tasks on the cpu pretend there
@@ -1539,6 +1543,7 @@ static int tg_shares_up
 	for_each_cpu_mask(i, sd->span)
 		update_group_shares_cpu(tg, i, shares, rq_weight);

+	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tg->tg_lock, flags);
 	return 0;
 }

@@ -8195,6 +8200,10 @@ void __init sched_init(void)
 	list_add(&init_task_group.list, &task_groups);
 	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&init_task_group.children);

+#ifdef CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
+	spin_lock_init(&init_task_group.tg_lock);
+#endif /* CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED */
+
 #ifdef CONFIG_USER_SCHED
 	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&root_task_group.children);
 	init_task_group.parent = &root_task_group;
@@ -8491,6 +8500,10 @@ int alloc_fair_sched_group

 	tg->shares = NICE_0_LOAD;

+#ifdef CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
+	spin_lock_init(&tg->tg_lock);
+#endif /* CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED */
+
 	for_each_possible_cpu(i) {
 		rq = cpu_rq(i);
--
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/