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: <20190902123106.GS2386@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 2 Sep 2019 14:31:06 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Alessio Balsini <balsini@...roid.com>
Cc:     mingo@...nel.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
        luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it, bristot@...hat.com, dvyukov@...gle.com,
        tglx@...utronix.de, vpillai@...italocean.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 01/13] sched/deadline: Impose global limits on
 sched_attr::sched_period

On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 11:16:23AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 03:41:17PM +0100, Alessio Balsini wrote:
> > Right!
> > 
> > Verified that sysctl_sched_dl_period_max and sysctl_sched_dl_period_min values
> > are now always consistent.
> > 
> > I spent some time in trying to figure out if not having any mutex in
> > __checkparam_dl() is safe. There can surely happen that "max < min", e.g.:

> > Sharing my thoughts, a "BUG_ON(max < min)" in __checkparam_dl() is then a
> > guaranteed source of explosions, but the good news is that "if (period < min ||
> > period > max" in __checkparam_dl() surely fails if "max < min".  Also the fact
> > that, when we are writing the new sysctl_sched_dl_* values, only one is
> > actually changed at a time, that surely helps to preserve the consistency.
> > 
> > But is that enough?
> 
> Strictly speaking, no, I suppose it is not. We can have two changes in
> between the two READ_ONCE()s and then we'd be able to observe a
> violation.
> 
> The easy way to fix that is do something like:
> 
> +	synchronize_rcu();
> 	mutex_unlock(&mutex);
> 
> in sched_dl_period_handler(). And do:
> 
> +	preempt_disable();
> 	max = (u64)READ_ONCE(sysctl_sched_dl_period_max) * NSEC_PER_USEC;
> 	min = (u64)READ_ONCE(sysctl_sched_dl_period_min) * NSEC_PER_USEC;
> +	preempt_enable();
> 
> in __checkparam_dl().
> 
> That would prohibit we see two changes, and seeing only the single
> change is safe.

I pushed out a new version; and added patch to sched_rt_handler() on
top.

Please have a look at:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/peterz/queue.git sched/wip-deadline

I'll move these two patches to sched/core if everything looks good.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ