linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/4] sched: Fix a race between __kthread_bind() 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: <20150807160945.GF14626@mtj.duckdns.org>
Date:	Fri, 7 Aug 2015 12:09:45 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	mingo@...nel.org, riel@...hat.com, dedekind1@...il.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mgorman@...e.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	juri.lelli@....com, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/4] sched: Fix a race between __kthread_bind() and
 sched_setaffinity()

Hello, Peter.

On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 05:59:54PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > So, the problem there is that __kthread_bind() doesn't grab the same
> > lock that the syscall side grabs but workqueue used
> > set_cpus_allowed_ptr() which goes through the rq locking, so as long
> > as the check on syscall side is movied inside rq lock, it should be
> > fine.
> 
> Currently neither site uses any lock, and that is what the patch fixes
> (it uses the per-task ->pi_lock instead of the rq->lock, but that is
> immaterial).

Yeap, the testing on the syscall side should definitely be moved
inside rq->lock.

> What matters though is that you now must hold a scheduler lock while
> setting PF_NO_SETAFFINITY. In order to avoid spreading that knowledge
> around I've taught kthread_bind*() about this and made the workqueue
> code use that API (rather than having the workqueue code take scheduler
> locks).

So, as long as PF_NO_SETAFFINITY is set before the task sets its
affinity to its target holding the rq lock, it should still be safe.

> Hmm.. a better solution. Have the worker thread creation call
> kthread_bind_mask() before attach_to_pool() and have attach_to_pool()
> keep using set_cpus_allowed_ptr(). Less ugly.

Yeah, that works too.  About the same effect.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/