linux-kernel - Re: 5.6-rc3: WARNING: CPU: 48 PID: 17435 at kernel/sched/fair.c:380 enqueue_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: <20200228163202.aebqzo6n363oqdg5@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:   Fri, 28 Feb 2020 16:32:03 +0000
From:   Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
To:     Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Cc:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 5.6-rc3: WARNING: CPU: 48 PID: 17435 at kernel/sched/fair.c:380
 enqueue_task_fair+0x328/0x440

On 02/28/20 16:42, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> 
> 
> On 28.02.20 16:37, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 at 16:08, Christian Borntraeger
> > <borntraeger@...ibm.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Also happened with 5.4:
> >> Seems that I just happen to have an interesting test workload/system size interaction
> >> on a newly installed system that triggers this.
> > 
> > you will probably go back to 5.1 which is the version where we put
> > back the deletion of unused cfs_rq from the list which can trigger the
> > warning:
> > commit 039ae8bcf7a5 : (Fix O(nr_cgroups) in the load balancing path)
> > 
> > AFAICT, we haven't changed this since
> 
> So you do know what is the problem? If not is there any debug option or
> patch that I could apply to give you more information?
> 

It might be a long shot as I'm not particularly knowledgeable about this code
path, but could we be missing rcu_read_lock/unlock around the call to
unthrottle_cfs_rq() here?

---

diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index fc1dfc007604..56aa5cfbb7f1 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -7434,6 +7434,7 @@ static int tg_set_cfs_bandwidth(struct task_group *tg, u64 period, u64 quota)

        raw_spin_unlock_irq(&cfs_b->lock);

+       rcu_read_lock();
        for_each_online_cpu(i) {
                struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq = tg->cfs_rq[i];
                struct rq *rq = cfs_rq->rq;
@@ -7447,6 +7448,7 @@ static int tg_set_cfs_bandwidth(struct task_group *tg, u64 period, u64 quota)
                        unthrottle_cfs_rq(cfs_rq);
                rq_unlock_irq(rq, &rf);
        }
+       rcu_read_unlock();
        if (runtime_was_enabled && !runtime_enabled)
                cfs_bandwidth_usage_dec();
 out_unlock: