| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 12:23:37 +0400
From: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...allels.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>, <mingo@...nel.org>,
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Use RCU read lock on all calls to dl_bw_of()
В Пн, 29/09/2014 в 19:00 +0200, Peter Zijlstra пишет:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 06:54:18PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 08:43:47PM +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> > > Thanks for your report. It looks like your fix is not enough, because
> > > we check for rcu_read_lock_sched_held() in dl_bw_of(). It still warns
> > > even if rcu_read_lock() is held.
> > >
> > > I used rcu_read_lock_sched_held() because we free root_domain using
> > > call_rcu_sched(). So, it's necessary to held rcu_read_lock_sched(),
> > > and my initial commit has this problem too.
> > >
> > > It looks like we should fix it in a way like this:
> > >
> > > [PATCH]sched: Use dl_bw_of() under rcu_read_lock_sched()
> > >
> > > rq->rd is freed using call_rcu_sched(), and it's accessed with preemption
> > > disabled in the most cases.
> > >
> > > So in other places we should use rcu_read_lock_sched() to access it to fit
> > > the scheme:
> > >
> > > rcu_read_lock_sched() or preempt_disable() <==> call_rcu_sched().
> >
> > Hmm, sad that. I cannot remember why that is rcu_sched, I suspect
> > because we rely on it someplace but I cannot remember where.
> >
> > We could of course do a double take on that and use call_rcu after
> > call_rcu_sched(), such that either or both are sufficient.
> >
> > I would very much prefer not to add extra preempt_disable()s if
> > possible.
>
> Ah wait, if we simply move that preempt_disable() inside the
> for_each_cpu() loop there's no harm done. Having them outside is painful
> though.
[PATCH]sched: Use dl_bw_of() under preempt_disable()
rq->rd is freed using call_rcu_sched(), so rcu_read_lock() to access it
is not enough. We should use either rcu_read_lock_sched() or preempt_disable().
We choose preempt_disable()/preempt_enable() like in other places
where rq->rd is used.
Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...allels.com
Fixes 66339c31bc39 "sched: Use dl_bw_of() under RCU read lock"
Reported-by: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
---
kernel/sched/core.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++---------
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 25e4513..e1a4d76 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -5248,6 +5248,7 @@ static int sched_cpu_inactive(struct notifier_block *nfb,
{
unsigned long flags;
long cpu = (long)hcpu;
+ struct dl_bw *dl_b;
switch (action & ~CPU_TASKS_FROZEN) {
case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE:
@@ -5255,15 +5256,19 @@ static int sched_cpu_inactive(struct notifier_block *nfb,
/* explicitly allow suspend */
if (!(action & CPU_TASKS_FROZEN)) {
- struct dl_bw *dl_b = dl_bw_of(cpu);
bool overflow;
int cpus;
+ preempt_disable();
+ dl_b = dl_bw_of(cpu);
+
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&dl_b->lock, flags);
cpus = dl_bw_cpus(cpu);
overflow = __dl_overflow(dl_b, cpus, 0, 0);
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dl_b->lock, flags);
+ preempt_enable();
+
if (overflow)
return notifier_from_errno(-EBUSY);
}
@@ -7631,11 +7636,10 @@ static int sched_dl_global_constraints(void)
u64 runtime = global_rt_runtime();
u64 period = global_rt_period();
u64 new_bw = to_ratio(period, runtime);
+ struct dl_bw *dl_b;
int cpu, ret = 0;
unsigned long flags;
- rcu_read_lock();
-
/*
* Here we want to check the bandwidth not being set to some
* value smaller than the currently allocated bandwidth in
@@ -7646,25 +7650,27 @@ static int sched_dl_global_constraints(void)
* solutions is welcome!
*/
for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
- struct dl_bw *dl_b = dl_bw_of(cpu);
+ preempt_disable();
+ dl_b = dl_bw_of(cpu);
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&dl_b->lock, flags);
if (new_bw < dl_b->total_bw)
ret = -EBUSY;
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dl_b->lock, flags);
+ preempt_enable();
+
if (ret)
break;
}
- rcu_read_unlock();
-
return ret;
}
static void sched_dl_do_global(void)
{
u64 new_bw = -1;
+ struct dl_bw *dl_b;
int cpu;
unsigned long flags;
@@ -7674,18 +7680,19 @@ static void sched_dl_do_global(void)
if (global_rt_runtime() != RUNTIME_INF)
new_bw = to_ratio(global_rt_period(), global_rt_runtime());
- rcu_read_lock();
/*
* FIXME: As above...
*/
for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
- struct dl_bw *dl_b = dl_bw_of(cpu);
+ preempt_disable();
+ dl_b = dl_bw_of(cpu);
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&dl_b->lock, flags);
dl_b->bw = new_bw;
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dl_b->lock, flags);
+
+ preempt_enable();
}
- rcu_read_unlock();
}
static int sched_rt_global_validate(void)
--
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