linux-kernel - [PATCH 0/6] sched/cpusets fixes, more changes are needed

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: <20100315090958.GA9116@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:09:58 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Ben Blum <bblum@...gle.com>, Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	Miao Xie <miaox@...fujitsu.com>,
	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 0/6] sched/cpusets fixes, more changes are needed

Ingo, Peter.

Unless I missed something, with or without these patches the TASK_WAKING
logic in do_fork() is very broken.

	- do_fork() clears PF_STARTING and then calls wake_up_new_task()
	  which finally does s/WAKING/RUNNING.

	  But. Nobody can take rq->lock in between. This means a signal
	  from irq (quite possible with CLONE_THREAD) or another rt
	  thread which preempts us can lockup.

	- the comment in wake_up_new_task says:

		We still have TASK_WAKING but PF_STARTING is gone now, meaning
		->cpus_allowed is stable

	  this is not true. Yes, nobody can take rq->lock _after_ we cleared
	  PF_STARTING, but it is possible that another thread took this lock
	  before and still holds it doing, say, sched_setaffinity().

No?

If yes. I can make a patch, but the question is: what is the point to use
TASK_WAKING in fork pathes? Can't sched_fork() set TASK_RUNNING instead?
Afaics, TASK_RUNNING can equally protect from premature wakeups but doesn't
these PF_STARTING complications.

As for this series. Please review. I don't understand how it is possible
to really test these changes.

Dear cpuset developers! Please review ;) If you don't like 6/6, please make
a better fix. I tried to make as "simple" patch as possible because I hardly
understand cpuset.c, last time I quickly read it a long ago.

Oleg.

--
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/