Date:	Wed, 22 Oct 2014 00:03:57 +0400
From:	Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...dex.ru>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...allels.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] sched/numa: fix unsafe get_task_struct() in task_numa_assign()

On 21.10.2014 23:03, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 10/21, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:50:06PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>> Let me explain what I personally dislike in v3:
>>>
>>> 	- I think that we do not have enough reasons for
>>> 	  SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU. This is the serious change.
>>
>> What exactly would the downsides be? SDBR has very limited space
>> overhead iirc.
> 
> Yes, SDBR is nice (and it could probably have more users), but my
> concern is not overhead. Please see below.
> 
>>> 	- Again, perhaps we should start we a simple and stupid fix.
>>> 	  We can do get_task_struct() under rq->lock or, if nothing
>>> 	  else, just
>>>
>>> 	  	raw_spin_lock_irq(&rq->lock);
>>> 	  	cur = rq->curr;
>>> 	  	if (is_idle_task(cur) || (cur->flags & PF_EXITING))
>>> 	  		cur = NULL;
>>> 	  	raw_spin_unlock_irq(&rq->lock);
>>
>> I think I agree with you, this is the simple safe option and is
>> something we can easily backport. After that we can add creative bits on
>> top.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Kirill, could you please make a patch?

Yeah, I'll send it tomorrow.

>> I think I prefer the SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU thing over the probe_kernel
>> thing
> 
> I won't really insist, but let me try to explain why I dislike it in
> this particular case.
> 
> - It is not clear who else (except task_numa_compare) will need it.
>   And it looks at bit strange to make task_struct SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU
>   just to read a word in task_numa_compare().
> 
> - In some sense, the usage of SDBR looks simply "wrong" in this case.
>   IOW, I agree that probe_kernel_read() is ugly, but in this case
>   SDBR acts exactly the same way as probe_kernel_read().
> 
>   SDBR does not make the object rcu-safe, it only protects the object
>   type plus ensures that this memory can't go away. It was designed
>   for the case when you read the stable members initialized in ctor
>   (usually a lock) and verify/lock the object.
> 
>   But in this case we can not detect that the object is still alive
>   without the additional trick, so when you read ->sighand or ->flags,
>   the fact that this memory is still "struct task_struct" doesn't help
>   and doesn't matter at all. Only the subsequent "task == rq->curr"
>   check proves that yes, this is task_struct.
> 
>   OTOH, (afaics) we only need probe_kernel_read() if CONFIG_DEBUG_SLAB.
>   And in fact I think that "read the valid but potentially freed kernel
>   pointer" deserves another helper, it can have more users. For example,
>   please look at get_freepointer_safe().
> 
>   What if we add get_kernel(x, ptr) macro to factor out the IS_ENABLED()
>   of ifdef hack? Or inline function... This way the new xxx() helper we
>   discussed won't look that bad.
> 
> But again, I agree that this subjective, I won't really argue.

So this patch we fix task_numa_compare(). We need remember to fix
remaining later:

$ git grep ACCESS_ONCE kernel/sched/ | grep "\->curr"
kernel/sched/deadline.c:	curr = ACCESS_ONCE(rq->curr); /*
kernel/sched/fair.c:	cur = ACCESS_ONCE(dst_rq->curr);
kernel/sched/fair.c:	tsk = ACCESS_ONCE(cpu_rq(cpu)->curr);
kernel/sched/rt.c:	curr = ACCESS_ONCE(rq->curr); /* unlocked

Kirill
--
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