linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: don't assign runtime for throttled cfs

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 16 Aug 2019 15:02:04 +0100
From:   Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To:     Liangyan <liangyan.peng@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, shanpeic@...ux.alibaba.com,
        xlpang@...ux.alibaba.com, pjt@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: don't assign runtime for throttled cfs_rq

On 16/08/2019 08:08, Liangyan wrote:
> Please check below dmesg log with “WARN_ON(cfs_rq->runtime_remaining > 0)”. If apply my patch, the warning is gone.  Append the reproducing case in the end.
> 

[...]

Huh, thanks for the log & the reproducer. I'm still struggling to
understand how we could hit the condition you're adding, since
account_cfs_rq_runtime() shouldn't be called for throttled cfs_rqs (which
I guess is the bug). Also, if the cfs_rq is throttled, shouldn't we
prevent any further decrement of its ->runtime_remaining ?

I had a look at the callers of account_cfs_rq_runtime():

- update_curr(). Seems safe, but has a cfs_rq->curr check at the top. This
  won't catch throttled cfs_rq's because AFAICT their curr pointer isn't
  NULL'd on throttle.

- check_enqueue_throttle(). Already has a cfs_rq_throttled() check.

- set_next_task_fair(). Peter shuffled the whole set/put task thing
  recently but last I looked it seemed all sane.

I'll try to make sense of it, but have also Cc'd Paul since unlike me he
actually knows this stuff.