linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] sched: fix tsk->pi_lock isn't held when do_set_cpus

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <BLU436-SMTP2070F91D37071E830F9EA20806E0@phx.gbl>
Date:	Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:43:28 +0800
From:	Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>
To:	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
	kernel test robot <ying.huang@...el.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched: fix tsk->pi_lock isn't held when
 do_set_cpus_allowed()

Hi Boqun,
On 8/28/15 2:33 PM, Boqun Feng wrote:
> Hi Wanpeng,
>
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 12:02:47PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> <snip>
>> This patch fix it by following the rules for changing task_struct::cpus_allowed
>> w/ both pi_lock and rq->lock are held.
>>
>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <ying.huang@...el.com>
>> Reported-by: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>
>> ---
>>   v1 -> v2:
>>    * fix the silly double lock stuff
>>    * follow the rules for changing task_struct::cpus_allowed
>>
>>   kernel/sched/core.c |   22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   1 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> index b3386c6..8cf87e3 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> @@ -5186,6 +5186,27 @@ static void migrate_tasks(struct rq *dead_rq)
>>   		BUG_ON(!next);
>>   		next->sched_class->put_prev_task(rq, next);
>>   
>> +		/*
>> +		 * Rules for changing task_struct::cpus_allowed are holding
>> +		 * both pi_lock and rq->lock, such that holding either
>> +		 * stabilizes the mask.
>> +		 *
>> +		 * Drop rq->lock is not quite as disastrous as it usually is
>> +		 * because !cpu_active at this point, which means load-balance
>> +		 * will not interfere.
>> +		 */
>> +		lockdep_unpin_lock(&rq->lock);
>> +		raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
>> +		raw_spin_lock(&next->pi_lock);
>> +		raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
>> +		lockdep_pin_lock(&rq->lock);
>> +		if (!(task_rq(next) == rq && task_on_rq_queued(next))) {
>> +			lockdep_unpin_lock(&rq->lock);
>> +			raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
> Dropping rq->lock here means we will continue the loop without the
> rq->lock, right? But we do have a lockdep_pin_lock(&rq->lock) in the
> beginning of every iteration. So can we release rq->lock here?

Good catch! There is no need to lockdep_unpin and unlock rq->lock I think.

Regards,
Wanpeng Li

>
> Regards,
> Boqun
>
>> +			raw_spin_unlock(&next->pi_lock);
>> +			continue;
>> +		}
>> +
>>   		/* Find suitable destination for @next, with force if needed. */
>>   		dest_cpu = select_fallback_rq(dead_rq->cpu, next);
>>   
>> @@ -5196,6 +5217,7 @@ static void migrate_tasks(struct rq *dead_rq)
>>   			rq = dead_rq;
>>   			raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
>>   		}
>> +		raw_spin_unlock(&next->pi_lock);
>>   	}
>>   
>>   	rq->stop = stop;
>> -- 
>> 1.7.1
>>
>> --
>> 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/

--
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/