linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] sched,fair: Fix PELT integrity for new tasks

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]

Date:	Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:19:20 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
	Benjamin Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
	Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] sched,fair: Fix PELT integrity for new tasks

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 02:01:40PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> @@ -8219,6 +8254,19 @@ static int cpu_cgroup_can_attach(struct
>  		if (task->sched_class != &fair_sched_class)
>  			return -EINVAL;
>  #endif
> +		/*
> +		 * Serialize against wake_up_new_task() such
> +		 * that if its running, we're sure to observe
> +		 * its full state.
> +		 */
> +		raw_spin_unlock_wait(&task->pi_lock);
> +		/*
> +		 * Avoid calling sched_move_task() before wake_up_new_task()
> +		 * has happened. This would lead to problems with PELT. See
> +		 * XXX.
> +		 */
> +		if (task->state == TASK_NEW)
> +			return -EINVAL;
>  	}
>  	return 0;
>  }

So I think that's backwards; we want:

		if (task->state == TASK_NEW)
			return -EINVAL;
		raw_spin_unlock_wait(&task->pi_lock);

Because failing the attach is 'safe', but if we do not observe NEW we
must be absolutely sure to observe the full wakeup_new.

But since its not critical I'll change it to more obvious code:

		raw_spin_lock_irq(&task->pi_lock);
		if (task->state == TASK_NEW)
			ret = -EINVAL;
		raw_spin_unlock_irq(&task->pi_lock);