linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] sched/debug: Make sd->flags sysctl read-only

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]

Date:   Thu, 19 Mar 2020 12:04:56 +0000
From:   Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] sched/debug: Make sd->flags sysctl read-only


On Thu, Mar 19 2020, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 11.03.20 19:15, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> Writing to the sysctl of a sched_domain->flags directly updates the value of
>> the field, and goes nowhere near update_top_cache_domain(). This means that
>> the cached domain pointers can end up containing stale data (e.g. the
>> domain pointed to doesn't have the relevant flag set anymore).
>>
>> Explicit domain walks that check for flags will be affected by
>> the write, but this won't be in sync with the cached pointers which will
>> still point to the domains that were cached at the last sched_domain
>> build.
>>
>> In other words, writing to this interface is playing a dangerous game. It
>> could be made to trigger an update of the cached sched_domain pointers when
>> written to, but this does not seem to be worth the trouble. Make it
>> read-only.
>
> As long as I don't change SD flags for which cached SD pointers exist
> (SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES, SD_NUMA, SD_ASYM_PACKING or
> SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY) the write-able interface still could make some sense.
>
> E.g. by enabling SD_BALANCE_WAKE on the fly, I can force !want_affine
> wakees into slow path.
>

True, although since there is no explicit differenciation between the
cached and !cached flags, this is still a landmined interface.

> The question is, do people use the writable flags interface to tweak
> select_task_rq_fair() behavior in this regard?

I did try asking around on IRC (which admittedly is just a small subset
of people) but didn't find anyone.