linux-kernel - Re: INFO: rcu detected stall in do

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]

Date:   Tue, 16 Oct 2018 16:45:00 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>
cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        syzbot <syzbot+385468161961cee80c31@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, mingo@...hat.com,
        nstange@...e.de, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com
Subject: Re: INFO: rcu detected stall in do_idle

On Tue, 16 Oct 2018, Juri Lelli wrote:
> On 16/10/18 16:03, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 03:24:06PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > It does reproduce here but with a kworker stall. Looking at the reproducer:
> > > 
> > >   *(uint32_t*)0x20000000 = 0;
> > >   *(uint32_t*)0x20000004 = 6;
> > >   *(uint64_t*)0x20000008 = 0;
> > >   *(uint32_t*)0x20000010 = 0;
> > >   *(uint32_t*)0x20000014 = 0;
> > >   *(uint64_t*)0x20000018 = 0x9917;
> > >   *(uint64_t*)0x20000020 = 0xffff;
> > >   *(uint64_t*)0x20000028 = 0;
> > >   syscall(__NR_sched_setattr, 0, 0x20000000, 0);
> > > 
> > > which means:
> > > 
> > >   struct sched_attr {
> > >   	 .size		= 0,
> > > 	 .policy	= 6,
> > > 	 .flags		= 0,
> > > 	 .nice		= 0,
> > > 	 .priority	= 0,
> > > 	 .deadline	= 0x9917,
> > > 	 .runtime	= 0xffff,
> > > 	 .period	= 0,
> > >   }
> > > 
> > > policy 6 is SCHED_DEADLINE
> > > 
> > > That makes the thread hog the CPU and prevents all kind of stuff to run.
> > > 
> > > Peter, is that expected behaviour?
> > 
> > Sorta, just like FIFO-99 while(1);. Except we should be rejecting the
> > above configuration, because of the rule:
> > 
> >   runtime <= deadline <= period
> > 
> > Juri, where were we supposed to check that?
> 
> Not if period == 0.
> 
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/kernel/sched/deadline.c#L2632
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/kernel/sched/deadline.c#L2515
> 
> Now, maybe we should be checking also against the default 95% cap?

If the cap is active, then yes. But you want to use the actual
configuration not the default.

Thanks,

	tglx