linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RT 5/8] sched/deadline: Reclaim cpuset bandwidth in .migrate_task

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: <20191009072745.GI19588@localhost.localdomain>
Date:   Wed, 9 Oct 2019 09:27:45 +0200
From:   Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
To:     Scott Wood <swood@...hat.com>
Cc:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT 5/8] sched/deadline: Reclaim cpuset bandwidth in
 .migrate_task_rq()

On 09/10/19 01:25, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-10-01 at 10:52 +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > On 30/09/19 11:24, Scott Wood wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2019-09-30 at 09:12 +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > > Hummm, I was actually more worried about the fact that we call
> > > > free_old_
> > > > cpuset_bw_dl() only if p->state != TASK_WAKING.
> > > 
> > > Oh, right. :-P  Not sure what I had in mind there; we want to call it
> > > regardless.
> > > 
> > > I assume we need rq->lock in free_old_cpuset_bw_dl()?  So something like
> > 
> > I think we can do with rcu_read_lock_sched() (see dl_task_can_attach()).
> 
> RCU will keep dl_bw from being freed under us (we're implicitly in an RCU
> sched read section due to atomic context).  It won't stop rq->rd from
> changing, but that could have happened before we took rq->lock.  If the cpu
> the task was running on was removed from the cpuset, and that raced with the
> task being moved to a different cpuset, couldn't we end up erroneously
> subtracting from the cpu's new root domain (or failing to subtract at all if
> the old cpu's new cpuset happens to be the task's new cpuset)?  I don't see
> anything that forces tasks off of the cpu when a cpu is removed from a
> cpuset (though maybe I'm not looking in the right place), so the race window
> could be quite large.  In any case, that's an existing problem that's not
> going to get solved in this patchset.

OK. So, mainline has got cpuset_read_lock() which should be enough to
guard against changes to rd(s).

I agree that rq->lock is needed here.

Thanks,

Juri