linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] sched: set new prio after checking schedule policy

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <jhjh7x3sh8y.mognet@arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Apr 2020 17:32:45 +0100
From:   Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To:     Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] sched: set new prio after checking schedule policy


On 24/04/20 05:36, Hillf Danton wrote:
> Set newprio the same way as normal_prio() does after checking schedule
> policy and to MAX_PRIO -1 by default.
>
> What is also added is boundary checks for RT and fair priorities.
>
> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
> Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
> Cc: Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
> Cc: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
> Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
> Signed-off-by: Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
> ---
>
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -4768,8 +4768,7 @@ static int __sched_setscheduler(struct t
>                               const struct sched_attr *attr,
>                               bool user, bool pi)
>  {
> -	int newprio = dl_policy(attr->sched_policy) ? MAX_DL_PRIO - 1 :
> -		      MAX_RT_PRIO - 1 - attr->sched_priority;
> +	int newprio;
>       int retval, oldprio, oldpolicy = -1, queued, running;
>       int new_effective_prio, policy = attr->sched_policy;
>       const struct sched_class *prev_class;
> @@ -4800,6 +4799,26 @@ recheck:
>               return -EINVAL;
>
>       /*
> +	 * compute newprio after checking policy, see normal_prio();
> +	 * it's used in pi boost below
> +	 */
> +	if (dl_policy(policy)) {
> +		newprio = MAX_DL_PRIO - 1;
> +	}
> +	else if (rt_policy(policy)) {
> +		if (attr->sched_priority > MAX_RT_PRIO - 1)
> +			return -EINVAL;
> +		newprio = MAX_RT_PRIO - 1 - attr->sched_priority;
> +	}
> +	else if (fair_policy(policy)) {
> +		if (attr->sched_nice < MIN_NICE ||
> +		    attr->sched_nice > MAX_NICE)
> +			return -EINVAL;


We can't hit this with the syscall route, since we (silently) clamp those
values in sched_copy_attr(). setpriority() does the same. There's this
comment in sched_copy_attr() that asks whether we should clamp or return an
error; seems like the current consensus is on clamping, but then we might
want to get rid of that comment :)

> +		newprio = NICE_TO_PRIO(attr->sched_nice);

This is new, however AFAICT it doesn't change anything for CFS (or about to
be) tasks since what matters is calling check_class_changed() further
down.

> +	} else
> +		newprio = MAX_PRIO - 1;
> +
> +	/*
>        * Allow unprivileged RT tasks to decrease priority:
>        */
>       if (user && !capable(CAP_SYS_NICE)) {