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]
Date:	Thu,  6 Feb 2014 23:10:36 +0000
From:	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To:	peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...nel.org
Cc:	alex.shi@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: [PATCH V2 2/3] sched: Fix race in idle_balance()

The scheduler main function 'schedule()' checks if there are no more tasks
on the runqueue. Then it checks if a task should be pulled in the current
runqueue in idle_balance() assuming it will go to idle otherwise.

But the idle_balance() releases the rq->lock in order to lookup in the sched
domains and takes the lock again right after. That opens a window where
another cpu may put a task in our runqueue, so we won't go to idle but
we have filled the idle_stamp, thinking we will.

This patch closes the window by checking if the runqueue has been modified
but without pulling a task after taking the lock again, so we won't go to idle
right after in the __schedule() function.

Cc: alex.shi@...aro.org
Cc: peterz@...radead.org
Cc: mingo@...nel.org
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
---
 kernel/sched/fair.c |    7 +++++++
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 428bc9d..5ebc681 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -6589,6 +6589,13 @@ void idle_balance(struct rq *this_rq)
 
 	raw_spin_lock(&this_rq->lock);
 
+	/*
+	 * While browsing the domains, we released the rq lock.
+	 * A task could have be enqueued in the meantime
+	 */
+	if (this_rq->nr_running && !pulled_task)
+		return;
+
 	if (pulled_task || time_after(jiffies, this_rq->next_balance)) {
 		/*
 		 * We are going idle. next_balance may be set based on
-- 
1.7.9.5

--
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