linux-kernel - [PATCH 3.16 262/366] sched/autogroup: Fix 64-bit kernel nice level adjustment

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: <lsq.1539530741.563310568@decadent.org.uk>
Date:   Sun, 14 Oct 2018 16:25:41 +0100
From:   Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
CC:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, "Mike Galbraith" <efault@....de>,
        "Peter Zijlstra" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
        "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "linux-man" <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Mike Galbraith" <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
        "Michael Kerrisk" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Subject: [PATCH 3.16 262/366] sched/autogroup: Fix 64-bit kernel nice
 level adjustment

3.16.60-rc1 review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>

commit 83929cce95251cc77e5659bf493bd424ae0e7a67 upstream.

Michael Kerrisk reported:

> Regarding the previous paragraph...  My tests indicate
> that writing *any* value to the autogroup [nice priority level]
> file causes the task group to get a lower priority.

Because autogroup didn't call the then meaningless scale_load()...

Autogroup nice level adjustment has been broken ever since load
resolution was increased for 64-bit kernels.  Use scale_load() to
scale group weight.

Michael Kerrisk tested this patch to fix the problem:

> Applied and tested against 4.9-rc6 on an Intel u7 (4 cores).
> Test setup:
>
> Terminal window 1: running 40 CPU burner jobs
> Terminal window 2: running 40 CPU burner jobs
> Terminal window 1: running  1 CPU burner job
>
> Demonstrated that:
> * Writing "0" to the autogroup file for TW1 now causes no change
>   to the rate at which the process on the terminal consume CPU.
> * Writing -20 to the autogroup file for TW1 caused those processes
>   to get the lion's share of CPU while TW2 TW3 get a tiny amount.
> * Writing -20 to the autogroup files for TW1 and TW3 allowed the
>   process on TW3 to get as much CPU as it was getting as when
>   the autogroup nice values for both terminals were 0.

Reported-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Tested-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-man <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1479897217.4306.6.camel@gmx.de
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
[bwh: Backported to 3.16: s/sched_prio_to_weight/prio_to_weight/]
Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
---
 kernel/sched/auto_group.c | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/kernel/sched/auto_group.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/auto_group.c
@@ -197,6 +197,7 @@ int proc_sched_autogroup_set_nice(struct
 {
 	static unsigned long next = INITIAL_JIFFIES;
 	struct autogroup *ag;
+	unsigned long shares;
 	int err;
 
 	if (nice < MIN_NICE || nice > MAX_NICE)
@@ -215,9 +216,10 @@ int proc_sched_autogroup_set_nice(struct
 
 	next = HZ / 10 + jiffies;
 	ag = autogroup_task_get(p);
+	shares = scale_load(prio_to_weight[nice + 20]);
 
 	down_write(&ag->lock);
-	err = sched_group_set_shares(ag->tg, prio_to_weight[nice + 20]);
+	err = sched_group_set_shares(ag->tg, shares);
 	if (!err)
 		ag->nice = nice;
 	up_write(&ag->lock);