linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] sched/uclamp: Protect uclamp fast path code with static key

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:   Tue, 30 Jun 2020 20:28:22 +0100
From:   Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@...bug.net>,
        Chris Redpath <chris.redpath@....com>,
        Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] sched/uclamp: Protect uclamp fast path code with
 static key

On 06/30/20 21:06, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 06:55:02PM +0100, Qais Yousef wrote:
> > On 06/30/20 19:07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > > There's a fun race described in 9107c89e269d ("perf: Fix race between
> > > event install and jump_labels"), are we sure this isn't also susceptible
> > > to something similar?
> > > 
> > > I suspect not, but I just wanted to make sure.
> > 
> > IIUC, the worry is that not all CPUs might have observed the change in the
> > static key state; hence could not be running the patched
> > enqueue/dequeue_task(), so we could end up with some CPUs accounting for
> > uclamp in the enqueue/dequeue path but not others?
> > 
> > I was hoping this synchronization is guaranteed by the static_branch_*() call.
> 
> It is, that isn't quite the the problem. Looking at it more I think
> commit 1dbb6704de91 ("jump_label: Fix concurrent
> static_key_enable/disable()") fixed some of it.
> 
> From what I can remember there were two parts to this problem, one being
> fixed by the above commit, the other being that if we enable while a
> task is running we miss the switch-in event (exactly how in this patch
> we miss the enqueue).
> 
> Due to the missing switch-in, the state is 'weird' and the subsequent
> IPI to install a remote event didn't quite work.
> 
> So I put that sync_sched() call in to guarantee all CPUs have done a
> schedule() cycle after having the key switched. This makes sure that
> every running task has seen the switch-in and thus the state is as
> expected.
> 
> But like I said, I think we're good, that one extra branch deals with
> the half-state.

Got it, thanks.

Yes, we should be good for currently running tasks.

Thanks

--
Qais Yousef