linux-kernel - Re: 5.8-rc*: kernel BUG at kernel/signal.c:1917

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <jhjtuy1i60z.mognet@arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Jul 2020 10:14:36 +0100
From:   Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        christian@...uner.io, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Dave Jones <davej@...emonkey.org.uk>,
        Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: 5.8-rc*: kernel BUG at kernel/signal.c:1917


On 20/07/20 15:21, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 04:02:24PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> I have to admit, I do not understand the usage of prev_state in schedule(),
>> it looks really, really subtle...
>
> Right, so commit dbfb089d360 solved a problem where schedule() re-read
> prev->state vs prev->on_rq = 0. That is, schedule()'s dequeue and
> ttwu()'s enqueue disagreed over sched_contributes_to_load. and as a
> result load-accounting went wobbly.
>
> Now, looking at that commit again, I might've solved the problem twice
> :-P
>
> So on the one hand, I provider ordering:
>
>       LOAD p->state		LOAD-ACQUIRE p->on_rq == 0
>       MB
>       STORE p->on_rq, 0	STORE p->state, TASK_WAKING
>
> such that ttwu() will only change p->state, after on_rq==0, which is
> after loading p->state in schedule().
>
> At the same time, I also had schedule() set
> p->sched_contributes_to_load once, and then consistently used that value
> throughout, without ever looking at p->state again, which too makes it
> much harder to mess load-avg up.
>
>
> Now, the ordering in schedule(), relies on doing the p->state load
> before:
>
>       spin_lock(rq->lock)
>       smp_mb__after_spinlock();
>
> and doing a re-load check after, with the assumption that if the reload
> is different, it will not block.
>
> That said, in a crossed email, I just proposed we could simplify all
> this like so.. but now I need to go ask people to re-validate that
> loadavg muck again :-/
>
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index a2a244af9a53..437fc3b241f2 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -4193,9 +4193,6 @@ static void __sched notrace __schedule(bool preempt)
>       local_irq_disable();
>       rcu_note_context_switch(preempt);
>
> -	/* See deactivate_task() below. */
> -	prev_state = prev->state;
> -
>       /*
>        * Make sure that signal_pending_state()->signal_pending() below
>        * can't be reordered with __set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE)
> @@ -4223,7 +4220,8 @@ static void __sched notrace __schedule(bool preempt)
>        * We must re-load prev->state in case ttwu_remote() changed it
>        * before we acquired rq->lock.
>        */
> -	if (!preempt && prev_state && prev_state == prev->state) {
> +	prev_state = prev->state;

AFAICT the ttwu/schedule ordering dance + the "trick" of updating
p->sched_contributes_to_load in __schedule() under rq lock ensures loadavg
accounting won't go awry here. I'm still a bit low on coffee, but that does
LGTM.


> +	if (!preempt && prev_state) {
>               if (signal_pending_state(prev_state, prev)) {
>                       prev->state = TASK_RUNNING;
>               } else {
> @@ -4237,10 +4235,12 @@ static void __sched notrace __schedule(bool preempt)
>
>                       /*
>                        * __schedule()			ttwu()
> -			 *   prev_state = prev->state;	  if (READ_ONCE(p->on_rq) && ...)
> -			 *   LOCK rq->lock		    goto out;
> -			 *   smp_mb__after_spinlock();	  smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep();
> -			 *   p->on_rq = 0;		  p->state = TASK_WAKING;
> +			 *   if (prev_state)		  if (p->on_rq && ...)
> +			 *     p->on_rq = 0;		    goto out;
> +			 *				  smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep();
> +			 *				  p->state = TASK_WAKING
> +			 *
> +			 * Where __schedule() and ttwu() have matching control dependencies.
>                        *
>                        * After this, schedule() must not care about p->state any more.
>                        */