Message-ID: <4F965471.2030905@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:21:21 +0200
From:	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>
To:	Tommaso Cucinotta <tommaso.cucinotta@...up.it>
CC:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, tglx@...utronix.de,
	mingo@...hat.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, cfriesen@...tel.com,
	oleg@...hat.com, fweisbec@...il.com, darren@...art.com,
	johan.eker@...csson.com, p.faure@...tech.ch,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, claudio@...dence.eu.com,
	michael@...rulasolutions.com, fchecconi@...il.com,
	nicola.manica@...i.unitn.it, luca.abeni@...tn.it,
	dhaval.giani@...il.com, hgu1972@...il.com,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, raistlin@...ux.it,
	insop.song@...csson.com, liming.wang@...driver.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/16] sched: SCHED_DEADLINE policy implementation.

On 04/24/2012 12:13 AM, Tommaso Cucinotta wrote:
> Il 23/04/2012 17:41, Juri Lelli ha scritto:
>> The user could call __setparam_dl on a throttled task through
>> __sched_setscheduler.
>
> in case it can be related: a scenario that used to break isolation
> (in the old aquosa crap): 1) create a deadline task 2) (actively)
> wait till it's just about to be throttled 3) remove reservation
> (i.e., return the task to the normal system policy and destroy
> reservation info in the kernel) 4) reserve it again
>

Yes, this is very similar to what I thought just after I've sent the
email (ouch! :-)).
  
> Assuming the borderline condition of a nearly fully saturated system,
> if 3)-4) manage to happen sufficiently close to each other and right
> after 2), now the task budget is refilled with a deadline which is
> where it should not be, according to the admission control rules. In
> other words, we may break guarantees of other tasks by a properly
> misbehaving task. Something relevant when considering misbehaviour
> and admission control from a security perspective [1].
>

Thanks for the ref., I'll read it!

> At that time, I was persuaded that the right way to avoid this would
> be to avoid to free system cpu bw immediately when a reservation is
> destroyed, but rather wait till its current abs deadline, then "free"
> the bandwidth. A new task trying to re-create the reservation too
> early, i.e., at step 4) above, would be rejected by the system as it
> would still see a fully occupied cpu bw. Never implemented of course
> :-)...
>

A kind of "two steps" approach. It would work, I just have to think how
to implement it (and let the system survive ;-)). Then create some
bench to test it.

> And also, from a security perspective, a misbehaving (sched_other)
> task might thrash the system with useless nansosleeps forcing the OS
> to continuously schedule/deschedule it. Equivalently, with a deadline
> scheduler, you could try to set a very small period/deadline. That's
> why in [1], among the configurable variables, there was a minimum
> allowed reservation period.
>

Yes, this should be easily controlled at admission time.

> Nothing really urgent, just something you might want to keep in mind
> for the future, I thought.
>

Well, depends on how much effort will this turn to require. I personally
would prefer to be able to come out with a new release ASAP. Just to
continue the discussion with the most of the comments addressed and a
more updated code (I also have a mainline version of the patchset
quite ready).

Thanks a lot,

- Juri

--
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