linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/dl: Fix race between dl_task_timer() and sched

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]

Message-Id: <20140520101730.ab593e41d5ee5949740de52e@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 20 May 2014 10:17:30 +0200
From:	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...dex.ru>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/dl: Fix race between dl_task_timer() and
 sched_setaffinity()

Hi,

On Tue, 20 May 2014 09:53:15 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 09:08:53AM +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 20.05.2014, 04:00, "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>:
> > > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:31:19PM +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> > >
> > >>  @@ -513,9 +513,17 @@ static enum hrtimer_restart dl_task_timer(struct hrtimer *timer)
> > >>                                                        struct sched_dl_entity,
> > >>                                                        dl_timer);
> > >>           struct task_struct *p = dl_task_of(dl_se);
> > >>  - struct rq *rq = task_rq(p);
> > >>  + struct rq *rq;
> > >>  +again:
> > >>  + rq = task_rq(p);
> > >>           raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
> > >>
> > >>  + if (unlikely(rq != task_rq(p))) {
> > >>  + /* Task was moved, retrying. */
> > >>  + raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
> > >>  + goto again;
> > >>  + }
> > >>  +
> > >
> > > That thing is called: rq = __task_rq_lock(p);
> > 
> > But p->pi_lock is not held. The problem is __task_rq_lock() has lockdep assert.
> > Should we change it?
> 
> Ok, so now that I'm awake ;-)
> 
> So the trivial problem as described by your initial changelog isn't
> right, because we cannot call sched_setaffinity() on deadline tasks, or
> rather we can, but we can't actually change the affinity mask.
> 

Well, if we disable AC we can. And I was able to recreate that race in
that case.

> Now I suppose the problem can still actually happen when you change the
> root domain and trigger a effective affinity change that way.
> 

Yeah, I think here too.

> That said, no leave it as you proposed, adding a *task_rq_lock() variant
> without lockdep assert in will only confuse things, as normally we
> really should be also taking ->pi_lock.
> 
> The only reason we don't strictly need ->pi_lock now is because we're
> guaranteed to have p->state == TASK_RUNNING here and are thus free of
> ttwu races.

Maybe we could add this as part of the comment.

Thanks,

- 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/