linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: WARN and refuse to set buddy when !se->on

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87k25qreca.fsf@possimpible.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 09 May 2017 11:47:17 +1000
From:   Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net>
To:     Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: WARN and refuse to set buddy when !se->on_rq

Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com> writes:

> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 10:22 PM, Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net> wrote:
>> If we set a next or last buddy for a se that is not on_rq, we will
>> end up taking a NULL pointer dereference in wakeup_preempt_entity
>> via pick_next_task_fair.
>>
>> Detect when we would be about to do that, throw a warning and
>> then refuse to actually set it.
>>
>> This has been suggested at least twice[0][1]: just do it.
>>
>> [0] https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=146651668921468&w=2
>> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/6/16/663
>>
>> Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>
>> Cc: Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>
>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> I recently had to debug a problem with these (we hadn't backported
>> Konstantin's patches in this area) and this would have saved a lot
>> of time/pain.
>
> Yep, this is worth debug. But I think it should be under compile-time
> config option.
> Something like CONFIG_DEBUG_VM which enables VM_BUG_ON and VM_WARN_ON.

OK, will respin.

Regards,
Daniel

>
>> ---
>>  kernel/sched/fair.c | 10 ++++++++--
>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index d71109321841..9b988815b4ad 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -6168,8 +6168,11 @@ static void set_last_buddy(struct sched_entity *se)
>>         if (entity_is_task(se) && unlikely(task_of(se)->policy == SCHED_IDLE))
>>                 return;
>>
>> -       for_each_sched_entity(se)
>> +       for_each_sched_entity(se) {
>> +               if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!se->on_rq))
>> +                       return;
>>                 cfs_rq_of(se)->last = se;
>> +       }
>>  }
>>
>>  static void set_next_buddy(struct sched_entity *se)
>> @@ -6177,8 +6180,11 @@ static void set_next_buddy(struct sched_entity *se)
>>         if (entity_is_task(se) && unlikely(task_of(se)->policy == SCHED_IDLE))
>>                 return;
>>
>> -       for_each_sched_entity(se)
>> +       for_each_sched_entity(se) {
>> +               if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!se->on_rq))
>> +                       return;
>>                 cfs_rq_of(se)->next = se;
>> +       }
>>  }
>>
>>  static void set_skip_buddy(struct sched_entity *se)
>> --
>> 2.11.0
>>