linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] kernel: sched: Provide a pointer to the valid CPU mask

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: <20170406105736.uw2j22igja45wi4b@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 6 Apr 2017 12:57:36 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] kernel: sched: Provide a pointer to the valid CPU
 mask

On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:47:21PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Apr 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > IIRC MIPS has a case where only 1 in N cores has an FPU. And once a task
> > uses FPU, it gets affined to the core that has one or something like
> > that.
> >
> > Of course, nothing then stops someone else breaking that affinity. But I
> > suspect it will simply fault on the next FPU instruction and 'reset' the
> > mask or something. I've no clue and no real desire to know.
> 
> It does nasty games with it's own storage of p->thread.user_cpus_allowed
> and a fully seperate implementation of sys_sched_set|getaffinity.
> 
> Plus a magic trap handler which forces the thread to a CPU with FPU when
> the user_cpus_allowed mask intersects with the cpus_with_fpu_mask...
> 
> Magic crap, which could all be replaced by a simple function in the
> scheduler which allows to push a task to a FPU CPU and then disable
> migration.

If its even halfway coherent, I'd much rather let it stay where it it.

I really want to limit migrate_disable() to PREEMPT_RT=y where its used
to preserve spinlock semantics and not allow random other
migrate_disable() usage in the kernel.

Also note, that per the above, it can actually migrate to any core that
has an FPU on, so its not a good match for migrate_disable() in any
case.