[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1413800145.19914.23.camel@tkhai>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:15:45 +0400
From: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...allels.com>
To: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>,
Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...dex.ru>
Subject: [PATCH v3] sched/numa: fix unsafe get_task_struct() in
task_numa_assign()
Unlocked access to dst_rq->curr in task_numa_compare() is racy.
If curr task is exiting this may be a reason of use-after-free:
task_numa_compare() do_exit()
rcu_read_lock() schedule()
cur = ACCESS_ONCE(dst_rq->curr) ...
... rq->curr = next;
... context_switch()
... finish_task_switch()
... put_task_struct()
... __put_task_struct()
... free_task_struct()
task_numa_assign() ...
get_task_struct() ...
As noted by Oleg:
<<The lockless get_task_struct(tsk) is only safe if tsk == current
and didn't pass exit_notify(), or if this tsk was found on a rcu
protected list (say, for_each_process() or find_task_by_vpid()).
IOW, it is only safe if release_task() was not called before we
take rcu_read_lock(), in this case we can rely on the fact that
delayed_put_pid() can not drop the (potentially) last reference
until rcu_read_unlock().
And as Kirill pointed out task_numa_compare()->task_numa_assign()
path does get_task_struct(dst_rq->curr) and this is not safe. The
task_struct itself can't go away, but rcu_read_lock() can't save
us from the final put_task_struct() in finish_task_switch(); this
reference goes away without rcu gp>>
The patch adds SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU flag to task_struct allocation
cache options. This guarantees that dst_rq->curr memory can't become
unmapped during RCU gp, and we may safely directly read it.
Also it adds rq_curr_if_not_exiting() function, which returns dst->curr
(at time of call) only if delayed_put_task_struct() callback hasn't
been called for its task_struct yet. This means the returned memory
is still a task while we are under RCU lock (and its task_struct::usage
is not zero), so we can safely use {get,put}_task_struct() to manipulate
with it.
Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...allels.com>
Suggested-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
---
kernel/fork.c | 9 +++++++--
kernel/sched/fair.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
2 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
index 9b7d746..72b5e73 100644
--- a/kernel/fork.c
+++ b/kernel/fork.c
@@ -259,10 +259,15 @@ void __init fork_init(unsigned long mempages)
#ifndef ARCH_MIN_TASKALIGN
#define ARCH_MIN_TASKALIGN L1_CACHE_BYTES
#endif
- /* create a slab on which task_structs can be allocated */
+ /*
+ * Create a slab on which task_structs can be allocated.
+ * Note, we need SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU flag, when we access
+ * rq::curr under RCU read lock. See scheduler code.
+ */
task_struct_cachep =
kmem_cache_create("task_struct", sizeof(struct task_struct),
- ARCH_MIN_TASKALIGN, SLAB_PANIC | SLAB_NOTRACK, NULL);
+ ARCH_MIN_TASKALIGN,
+ SLAB_PANIC | SLAB_NOTRACK | SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU, NULL);
#endif
/* do the arch specific task caches init */
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 0b069bf..d2d1625 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -1147,6 +1147,39 @@ static bool load_too_imbalanced(long src_load, long dst_load,
}
/*
+ * Return rq->curr if delayed_put_task_struct() callback hasn't
+ * been called for its task_struct yet).
+ *
+ * If result is not NULL, it is safe to use it like it'd be
+ * picked from RCU-protected list (use get_task_struct() etc).
+ */
+static struct task_struct *rq_curr_if_not_put(struct rq *rq)
+{
+ struct task_struct *cur = ACCESS_ONCE(rq->curr);
+
+ rcu_lockdep_assert(rcu_read_lock_held(), "RCU lock must be held");
+
+ if (cur->flags & PF_EXITING)
+ return NULL;
+
+ smp_rmb(); /* Pairs with smp_mb() in do_exit() */
+
+ /*
+ * We've reached here. Three situations are possible:
+ * 1)cur has gone, and dst_rq->curr is pointing to other memory.
+ * 2)cur is pointing to a new task, which is using the memory of
+ * just gone and freed cur (and it is new dst_rq->curr). It is
+ * OK, because we've locked RCU even before the new task has been
+ * created (so delayed_put_task_struct() hasn't been called yet);
+ * 3)we've taken a not exiting task (likely case). No need to worry.
+ */
+ if (cur != ACCESS_ONCE(rq->curr))
+ cur = NULL;
+
+ return cur;
+}
+
+/*
* This checks if the overall compute and NUMA accesses of the system would
* be improved if the source tasks was migrated to the target dst_cpu taking
* into account that it might be best if task running on the dst_cpu should
@@ -1164,8 +1197,9 @@ static void task_numa_compare(struct task_numa_env *env,
long moveimp = imp;
rcu_read_lock();
- cur = ACCESS_ONCE(dst_rq->curr);
- if (cur->pid == 0) /* idle */
+ cur = rq_curr_if_not_put(dst_rq);
+
+ if (cur && is_idle_task(cur))
cur = NULL;
/*
--
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