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: <1433512713-22984-25-git-send-email-luis.henriques@canonical.com>
Date:	Fri,  5 Jun 2015 14:57:07 +0100
From:	Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@...onical.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-team@...ts.ubuntu.com
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@...onical.com>
Subject: [PATCH 3.16.y-ckt 024/110] sched: Handle priority boosted tasks proper in setscheduler()

3.16.7-ckt13 -stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>

commit 0782e63bc6fe7e2d3408d250df11d388b7799c6b upstream.

Ronny reported that the following scenario is not handled correctly:

	T1 (prio = 10)
	   lock(rtmutex);

	T2 (prio = 20)
	   lock(rtmutex)
	      boost T1

	T1 (prio = 20)
	   sys_set_scheduler(prio = 30)
	   T1 prio = 30
	   ....
	   sys_set_scheduler(prio = 10)
	   T1 prio = 30

The last step is wrong as T1 should now be back at prio 20.

Commit c365c292d059 ("sched: Consider pi boosting in setscheduler()")
only handles the case where a boosted tasks tries to lower its
priority.

Fix it by taking the new effective priority into account for the
decision whether a change of the priority is required.

Reported-by: Ronny Meeus <ronny.meeus@...il.com>
Tested-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
Fixes: c365c292d059 ("sched: Consider pi boosting in setscheduler()")
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/alpine.DEB.2.11.1505051806060.4225@nanos
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
[ luis: backported to 3.16: adjusted context ]
Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@...onical.com>
---
 include/linux/sched/rt.h |  7 ++++---
 kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 12 +++++++-----
 kernel/sched/core.c      | 26 ++++++++++++++------------
 3 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/sched/rt.h b/include/linux/sched/rt.h
index 6341f5be6e24..a30b172df6e1 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched/rt.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched/rt.h
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ static inline int rt_task(struct task_struct *p)
 #ifdef CONFIG_RT_MUTEXES
 extern int rt_mutex_getprio(struct task_struct *p);
 extern void rt_mutex_setprio(struct task_struct *p, int prio);
-extern int rt_mutex_check_prio(struct task_struct *task, int newprio);
+extern int rt_mutex_get_effective_prio(struct task_struct *task, int newprio);
 extern struct task_struct *rt_mutex_get_top_task(struct task_struct *task);
 extern void rt_mutex_adjust_pi(struct task_struct *p);
 static inline bool tsk_is_pi_blocked(struct task_struct *tsk)
@@ -31,9 +31,10 @@ static inline int rt_mutex_getprio(struct task_struct *p)
 	return p->normal_prio;
 }
 
-static inline int rt_mutex_check_prio(struct task_struct *task, int newprio)
+static inline int rt_mutex_get_effective_prio(struct task_struct *task,
+					      int newprio)
 {
-	return 0;
+	return newprio;
 }
 
 static inline struct task_struct *rt_mutex_get_top_task(struct task_struct *task)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
index f9878d16b80b..3c9082036365 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
@@ -265,15 +265,17 @@ struct task_struct *rt_mutex_get_top_task(struct task_struct *task)
 }
 
 /*
- * Called by sched_setscheduler() to check whether the priority change
- * is overruled by a possible priority boosting.
+ * Called by sched_setscheduler() to get the priority which will be
+ * effective after the change.
  */
-int rt_mutex_check_prio(struct task_struct *task, int newprio)
+int rt_mutex_get_effective_prio(struct task_struct *task, int newprio)
 {
 	if (!task_has_pi_waiters(task))
-		return 0;
+		return newprio;
 
-	return task_top_pi_waiter(task)->task->prio <= newprio;
+	if (task_top_pi_waiter(task)->task->prio <= newprio)
+		return task_top_pi_waiter(task)->task->prio;
+	return newprio;
 }
 
 /*
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 6356f644a47b..5c89af9ea192 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -3251,15 +3251,18 @@ static void __setscheduler_params(struct task_struct *p,
 
 /* Actually do priority change: must hold pi & rq lock. */
 static void __setscheduler(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p,
-			   const struct sched_attr *attr)
+			   const struct sched_attr *attr, bool keep_boost)
 {
 	__setscheduler_params(p, attr);
 
 	/*
-	 * If we get here, there was no pi waiters boosting the
-	 * task. It is safe to use the normal prio.
+	 * Keep a potential priority boosting if called from
+	 * sched_setscheduler().
 	 */
-	p->prio = normal_prio(p);
+	if (keep_boost)
+		p->prio = rt_mutex_get_effective_prio(p, normal_prio(p));
+	else
+		p->prio = normal_prio(p);
 
 	if (dl_prio(p->prio))
 		p->sched_class = &dl_sched_class;
@@ -3345,7 +3348,7 @@ static int __sched_setscheduler(struct task_struct *p,
 	int newprio = dl_policy(attr->sched_policy) ? MAX_DL_PRIO - 1 :
 		      MAX_RT_PRIO - 1 - attr->sched_priority;
 	int retval, oldprio, oldpolicy = -1, on_rq, running;
-	int policy = attr->sched_policy;
+	int new_effective_prio, policy = attr->sched_policy;
 	unsigned long flags;
 	const struct sched_class *prev_class;
 	struct rq *rq;
@@ -3527,15 +3530,14 @@ change:
 	oldprio = p->prio;
 
 	/*
-	 * Special case for priority boosted tasks.
-	 *
-	 * If the new priority is lower or equal (user space view)
-	 * than the current (boosted) priority, we just store the new
+	 * Take priority boosted tasks into account. If the new
+	 * effective priority is unchanged, we just store the new
 	 * normal parameters and do not touch the scheduler class and
 	 * the runqueue. This will be done when the task deboost
 	 * itself.
 	 */
-	if (rt_mutex_check_prio(p, newprio)) {
+	new_effective_prio = rt_mutex_get_effective_prio(p, newprio);
+	if (new_effective_prio == oldprio) {
 		__setscheduler_params(p, attr);
 		task_rq_unlock(rq, p, &flags);
 		return 0;
@@ -3549,7 +3551,7 @@ change:
 		p->sched_class->put_prev_task(rq, p);
 
 	prev_class = p->sched_class;
-	__setscheduler(rq, p, attr);
+	__setscheduler(rq, p, attr, true);
 
 	if (running)
 		p->sched_class->set_curr_task(rq);
@@ -7112,7 +7114,7 @@ static void normalize_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
 	on_rq = p->on_rq;
 	if (on_rq)
 		dequeue_task(rq, p, 0);
-	__setscheduler(rq, p, &attr);
+	__setscheduler(rq, p, &attr, false);
 	if (on_rq) {
 		enqueue_task(rq, p, 0);
 		resched_task(rq->curr);
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ