linux-kernel - Re: [tip:sched/core] sched/fair: Use rq_lock/unlock in online_fair_sched

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: <d711ee53-48ca-47f5-df23-0593cc0f3347@arm.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Aug 2019 11:56:12 +0200
From:   Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
To:     Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
Cc:     vincent.guittot@...aro.org, hpa@...or.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
        mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...nel.org,
        linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:sched/core] sched/fair: Use rq_lock/unlock in
 online_fair_sched_group

On 8/9/19 7:28 PM, Phil Auld wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 06:21:22PM +0200 Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>> On 8/8/19 1:01 PM, tip-bot for Phil Auld wrote:

[...]

>> Shouldn't this be:
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index d9407517dae9..1054d2cf6aaa 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -10288,11 +10288,11 @@ void online_fair_sched_group(struct task_group
>> *tg)
>>         for_each_possible_cpu(i) {
>>                 rq = cpu_rq(i);
>>                 se = tg->se[i];
>> -               rq_lock(rq, &rf);
>> +               rq_lock_irq(rq, &rf);
>>                 update_rq_clock(rq);
>>                 attach_entity_cfs_rq(se);
>>                 sync_throttle(tg, i);
>> -               rq_unlock(rq, &rf);
>> +               rq_unlock_irq(rq, &rf);
>>         }
>>  }
>>
>> Currently, you should get a 'inconsistent lock state' warning with
>> CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING.
> 
> Yes, indeed. Sorry about that. Maybe it can be fixed in tip before 
> it gets any farther?  Or do we need a new patch?

I think Peter is on holiday so maybe you can send a new patch and ask
Ingo or Thomas to replace your original patch on tip sched/core?