linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] sched: Have do_idle() call _

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: <20170412124309.71cb3348@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Wed, 12 Apr 2017 12:43:09 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] sched: Have do_idle() call __schedule() without
 enabling preemption

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:21:57 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 10:41:24AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > [ tl;dr; version ]
> > 
> > Peter, In order to have synchronize_rcu_tasks() work, the idle task can
> > never be preempted. There's a very small window in
> > schedule_preempt_disable() that enables preemption, and when this
> > happens, it breaks synchronize_rcu_tasks() (see above email for
> > details).
> > 
> > Is there any reason to enable preemption, or can we simply have idle
> > call into schedule without ever allowing it to be preempted, as in my
> > patch?  
> 
> Dunno,.. this changelog should convince me, not make me do the work :-)

I didn't want you to do any work. I was wondering if you knew of any
reason. But looking into the history of the do_idle() function and
schedule_preempt_disable(), I don't see any reason. I'll post another
patch with a better change log.

> 
> > Note, it is almost good enough to just change
> > schedule_preempt_disable() to do the exact same thing, but there's one
> > instance in kernel/locking/mutex.c that calls it in a non running state.  
> 
> The point being that that must not happen because of
> sched_submit_work(), which, for idle, should not matter.

Right, and also for all the other cases that call
schedule_preempt_disable() which includes init/main.c and another
location in mutex.c that sets the task state to TASK_RUNNING just
before calling it.

But the one case where it can be something other than TASK_RUNNING,
then we need to keep the current method.

OK, I think it is fine for the idle task to never enable preemption and
I'll post a better change log patch.

Thanks!

-- Steve