[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161109165933.GA26071@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 17:59:33 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: hartsjc@...hat.com, vbendel@...hat.com, vlovejoy@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: sched/autogroup: race if !sysctl_sched_autogroup_enabled ?
I am trying to investigate a bug-report which looks as an autogroup bug,
and it seems I found the race which _might_ explain the problem. I'll
try to make the fix tomorrow but could you confirm I got it right and
answer the question below?
Let's look at task_wants_autogroup()
/*
* We can only assume the task group can't go away on us if
* autogroup_move_group() can see us on ->thread_group list.
*/
if (p->flags & PF_EXITING)
return false;
Firstly, I think that this PF_EXITING check is no longer needed.
sched_change_group() can be called by autogroup or cgroups code.
autogroup is obviously fine, cgroup-attach will never try to migrate
the exiting task (cgroup_threadgroup_rwsem helps), cpu_cgroup_fork()
is obviously fine too.
But!!! at the same time the comment is _correct_ even if very cryptic ;)
We need to ensure that autogroup/tg returned by autogroup_task_group()
can't go away if we race with autogroup_move_group(), and unless the
caller holds ->siglock we rely on fact that autogroup_move_group()
will a) see this task and b) do sched_move_task() which needs the same
same rq->lock.
However. autogroup_move_group() skips for_each_thread/sched_move_task
if sysctl_sched_autogroup_enabled == 0.
So. Doesn't this mean that cgroup migration to the root cgroup can race
with autogroup_move_group() and use the soon-to-be-freed autogroup->tg?
Or, even simpler, cgroup_post_fork()->cpu_cgroup_fork() can hit the
same race if CLONE_TRHEAD?
Or I am totally confused?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Now the qustions. Can't we simplify autogroup_task_get() and avoid
lock_task_sighand() ?
struct autogroup *autogroup_task_get(struct task_struct *p)
{
struct autogroup *ag
rcu_read_lock();
for (;;) {
// it is freed by sched_free_group_rcu() path
// and thus ->autogroup is rcu-safe too.
ag = READ_ONCE(p->signal->autogroup);
if (kref_get_unless_zero(&ag->kref))
break;
}
rcu_read_unlock();
return ag;
}
although this is a bit off-topic. Another question is that I fail to
understand why sched_autogroup_create_attach() does autogroup_create()
and changes signal->autogroup even if !sysctl_sched_autogroup_enabled.
IOW, even ignoring the problem above, what is wrong with this patch?
--- x/kernel/sched/auto_group.c
+++ x/kernel/sched/auto_group.c
@@ -152,8 +152,12 @@ out:
/* Allocates GFP_KERNEL, cannot be called under any spinlock */
void sched_autogroup_create_attach(struct task_struct *p)
{
- struct autogroup *ag = autogroup_create();
+ struct autogroup *ag;
+
+ if (!sysctl_sched_autogroup_enabled)
+ return;
+ ag = autogroup_create();
autogroup_move_group(p, ag);
/* drop extra reference added by autogroup_create() */
autogroup_kref_put(ag);
or even
--- x/kernel/sched/auto_group.c
+++ x/kernel/sched/auto_group.c
@@ -64,9 +64,13 @@ static inline struct autogroup *autogrou
static inline struct autogroup *autogroup_create(void)
{
- struct autogroup *ag = kzalloc(sizeof(*ag), GFP_KERNEL);
+ struct autogroup *ag;
struct task_group *tg;
+ if (!sysctl_sched_autogroup_enabled)
+ goto xxx;
+
+ ag = kzalloc(sizeof(*ag), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!ag)
goto out_fail;
@@ -103,7 +107,7 @@ out_fail:
printk(KERN_WARNING "autogroup_create: %s failure.\n",
ag ? "sched_create_group()" : "kmalloc()");
}
-
+xxx:
return autogroup_kref_get(&autogroup_default);
}
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists