linux-kernel - Re: RFC: SysRq nice-all-RT-tasks is broken

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: <20170308124012.496a75cf@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Wed, 8 Mar 2017 12:40:12 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: SysRq nice-all-RT-tasks is broken

[
  Added Peter

   Update: Laurent noticed that sysrq 'n' (nice-all-RT-tasks) calls
   __sched_setscheduler() form interrupt context. At the start of that
   function, there's a BUG_ON(in_interrupt()). The reason for that was
   due to the rt mutex pi code calling wait_lock. Which was not irq
   safe. Now it is, but that's not good enough.
]

On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 18:03:55 +0100
Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> On 08/03/2017 17:57, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 11:51:14 -0500
> > Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> > 
> >   
> >> Hmm, that commit was added in 2.6.18, and you're right, a lot has
> >> changed since then. Have you tried removing it and running it under
> >> lockdep, and see if it triggers any warnings?  
> > 
> > I did a little digging, and it appears that its the rt mutex wait lock
> > that the comment was referring to. Today that spin lock is irq safe. I
> > believe its safe to remove the BUG_ON(). Want me to send a patch?  
> 
> Sure, go ahead ;)
>

Actually, it's still not safe :-/

I just noticed this in the call path:

	raw_spin_unlock_irq(&task->pi_lock);

As well as other raw_spin_unlock_irq()s.

Which would enable interrupts regardless of the previous state.

One solution is to change all those to irqsave() but that seems to be a
big step for something that is rarely done (how many years has it been
since 2.6.18?).

I wonder if we should just have a special flag sent by that sysrq
trigger. Since it is causing all tasks to go "nice" there's no need to
do the pi chain walk in __sched_setscheduler().

-- Steve