linux-kernel - Re: Null pointer crash at find_idlest

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: <20191204133224.uiqbkbpseree7xou@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 4 Dec 2019 13:32:25 +0000
From:   Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Patrick Bellasi <Patrick.Bellasi@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Null pointer crash at find_idlest_group on db845c w/ linus/master

On 12/04/19 13:08, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 11:41, Valentin Schneider
> <valentin.schneider@....com> wrote:
> >
> > On 04/12/2019 10:09, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > Now, we test that a group has at least one allowed CPU for the task so we
> > > could skip the local group with the correct/wrong p->cpus_ptr
> > >
> > > The path is used for fork/exec ibut also for wakeup path for b.L when the task doesn't fit in the CPUs
> > >
> > > So we can probably imagine a scenario where we change task affinity while
> > > sleeping. If the wakeup happens on a CPU that belongs to the group that is not
> > > allowed, we can imagine that we skip the local_group
> > >
> >
> > Shoot, I think you're right. If it is the local group that is NULL, then
> > we most likely splat on:
> >
> >                 if (local->sgc->max_capacity >= idlest->sgc->max_capacity)
> >                         return NULL;
> >
> > We don't splat before because we just use local_sgs, which is uninitialized
> > but on the stack.
> >
> > Also; does it really have to involve an affinity "race"? AFAIU affinity
> > could have been changed a while back, but the waking CPU isn't allowed
> > so we skip the local_group (in simpler cases where each CPU is a group).
> 
> In fact, this will depend of the uninitialized values of local_sgs. I
> have been able to reproduce the situation where we skip local group
> but not to trigger the crash because the values already in the stack
> don't trigger the misfit comparison.

Will it be expensive to initialize local_sgs = {0}?

--
Qais Yousef