| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1292861059.15207.7.camel@marge.simson.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 17:04:19 +0100
From: Mike Galbraith <mgalbraith@...e.de>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Avi Kiviti <avi@...hat.com>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC -v2 PATCH 2/3] sched: add yield_to function
On Mon, 2010-12-20 at 10:40 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 12/17/2010 02:15 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > BTW, with this vruntime donation thingy, what prevents a task from
> > forking off accomplices who do nothing but wait for a wakeup and
> > yield_to(exploit)?
> >
> > Even swapping vruntimes in the same cfs_rq is dangerous as hell, because
> > one party is going backward.
>
> I just realized the answer to this question.
>
> We only give cpu time to tasks that are runnable, but not
> currently running. That ensures one task cannot block others
> from running by having time yielded to it constantly.
Hm. Don't think that will 100% sure prevent clock stoppage, because the
running task doesn't necessarily advance min_vruntime.
What about something like the below instead? It compiles, but may eat
your first born child.
sched: implement fair class yield_to(task) using cfs_rq->next as a selection hint.
<CHANGELOG>
Not-signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
---
include/linux/sched.h | 1
kernel/sched.c | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
kernel/sched_fair.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 104 insertions(+)
Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/sched.h
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/sched.h
+++ linux-2.6/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -1056,6 +1056,7 @@ struct sched_class {
void (*enqueue_task) (struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags);
void (*dequeue_task) (struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags);
void (*yield_task) (struct rq *rq);
+ int (*yield_to_task) (struct task_struct *p, int preempt);
void (*check_preempt_curr) (struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags);
Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched.c
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
@@ -5325,6 +5325,53 @@ void __sched yield(void)
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(yield);
+/**
+ * yield_to - yield the current processor to another thread in
+ * your thread group, or accelerate that thread toward the
+ * processor it's on.
+ *
+ * It's the caller's job to ensure that the target task struct
+ * can't go away on us before we can do any checks.
+ */
+void __sched yield_to(struct task_struct *p, int preempt)
+{
+ struct task_struct *curr = current;
+ struct rq *rq, *p_rq;
+ unsigned long flags;
+ int yield = 0;
+
+ local_irq_save(flags);
+ rq = this_rq();
+
+again:
+ p_rq = task_rq(p);
+ double_rq_lock(rq, p_rq);
+ while (task_rq(p) != p_rq) {
+ double_rq_unlock(rq, p_rq);
+ goto again;
+ }
+
+ if (task_running(p_rq, p) || p->state || !p->se.on_rq ||
+ !same_thread_group(p, curr) ||
+ !curr->sched_class->yield_to_task ||
+ curr->sched_class != p->sched_class) {
+ goto out;
+ }
+
+ yield = curr->sched_class->yield_to_task(p, preempt);
+
+out:
+ double_rq_unlock(rq, p_rq);
+ local_irq_restore(flags);
+
+ if (yield) {
+ set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
+ schedule();
+ }
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(yield_to);
+
+
/*
* This task is about to go to sleep on IO. Increment rq->nr_iowait so
* that process accounting knows that this is a task in IO wait state.
Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched_fair.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched_fair.c
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched_fair.c
@@ -1320,6 +1320,61 @@ static void yield_task_fair(struct rq *r
}
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
+static void pull_task(struct rq *src_rq, struct task_struct *p,
+ struct rq *this_rq, int this_cpu);
+#endif
+
+static int yield_to_task_fair(struct task_struct *p, int preempt)
+{
+ struct sched_entity *se = ¤t->se;
+ struct sched_entity *pse = &p->se;
+ struct sched_entity *curr = &(task_rq(p)->curr)->se;
+ struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(se);
+ struct cfs_rq *p_cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(pse);
+ int yield = this_rq() == task_rq(p);
+ int want_preempt = preempt;
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
+ if (cfs_rq->tg != p_cfs_rq->tg)
+ return 0;
+
+ /* Preemption only allowed within the same task group. */
+ if (preempt && cfs_rq->tg != cfs_rq_of(curr)->tg)
+ preempt = 0;
+#endif
+ /* Preemption only allowed within the same thread group. */
+ if (preempt && !same_thread_group(current, task_of(p_cfs_rq->curr)))
+ preempt = 0;
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
+ /*
+ * If this yield is important enough to want to preempt instead
+ * of only dropping a ->next hint, we're alone, and the target
+ * is not alone, pull the target to this cpu.
+ */
+ if (want_preempt && !yield && cfs_rq->nr_running == 1 &&
+ cpumask_test_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &p->cpus_allowed)) {
+ pull_task(task_rq(p), p, this_rq(), smp_processor_id());
+ p_cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(pse);
+ yield = 1;
+ }
+#endif
+
+ if (yield)
+ clear_buddies(cfs_rq, se);
+ else if (preempt)
+ clear_buddies(p_cfs_rq, curr);
+
+ /* Tell the scheduler that we'd really like pse to run next. */
+ p_cfs_rq->next = pse;
+
+ if (!yield && preempt)
+ resched_task(task_of(p_cfs_rq->curr));
+
+ return yield;
+}
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
static void task_waking_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
{
@@ -4126,6 +4181,7 @@ static const struct sched_class fair_sch
.enqueue_task = enqueue_task_fair,
.dequeue_task = dequeue_task_fair,
.yield_task = yield_task_fair,
+ .yield_to_task = yield_to_task_fair,
.check_preempt_curr = check_preempt_wakeup,
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists