linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/rt.c: pick and check task if double_lock

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: <59C9AC08.9000302@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Sep 2017 09:23:20 +0800
From:   zhouchengming <zhouchengming1@...wei.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <mingo@...hat.com>,
        <peterz@...radead.org>, <huawei.libin@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/rt.c: pick and check task if double_lock_balance()
 unlock the rq

On 2017/9/26 3:40, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:51:49 +0800
> Zhou Chengming<zhouchengming1@...wei.com>  wrote:
>
>> push_rt_task() pick the first pushable task and find an eligible
>> lowest_rq, then double_lock_balance(rq, lowest_rq). So if
>> double_lock_balance() unlock the rq (when double_lock_balance() return 1),
>> we have to check if this task is still on the rq.
>>
>> The problem is that the check conditions are not sufficient:
>>
>> if (unlikely(task_rq(task) != rq ||
>> 	     !cpumask_test_cpu(lowest_rq->cpu,&task->cpus_allowed) ||
>> 	     task_running(rq, task) ||
>> 	     !rt_task(task) ||
>> 	     !task_on_rq_queued(task))) {
>>
>> cpu2				cpu1			cpu0
>> push_rt_task(rq1)
>>    pick task_A on rq1
>>    find rq0
>>      double_lock_balance(rq1, rq0)
>>        unlock(rq1)
>> 				rq1 __schedule
>> 				  pick task_A run
>> 				task_A sleep (dequeued)
>>        lock(rq0)
>>        lock(rq1)
>>      do_above_check(task_A)
>>        task_rq(task_A) == rq1
>>        cpus_allowed unchanged
>>        task_running == false
>>        rt_task(task_A) == true
>> 							try_to_wake_up(task_A)
>> 							  select_cpu = cpu3
>> 							  enqueue(rq3, task_A)
> How can this happen? The try_to_wake_up(task_A) needs to grab the rq
> that task A is on, and we have that rq lock.
>
> /me confused.
>
> -- Steve

Thanks for the reply!
After the task_A sleep on cpu1, the try_to_wake_up(task_A) on cpu0 select a different cpu3,
so it will grab the rq3 lock, not the rq1 lock.

Thanks.

>
>> 							task_A->on_rq = 1
>>        task_on_rq_queued(task_A)
>>      above_check passed, return rq0
>>      ...
>>      migrate task_A from rq1 to rq0
>>
>> So we can't rely on these checks of task_A to make sure the task_A is
>> still on the rq1, even though we hold the rq1->lock. This patch will
>> repick the first pushable task to be sure the task is still on the rq.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zhou Chengming<zhouchengming1@...wei.com>
>>
> .
>