linux-kernel - [PATCH RFC 11/12] sched/coresched: Check for dynamic changes in smt

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: <20200815031908.1015049-12-joel@joelfernandes.org>
Date:   Fri, 14 Aug 2020 23:19:07 -0400
From:   "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Vineeth Pillai <viremana@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@...il.com>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
        Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        x86@...nel.org (maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)),
        fweisbec@...il.com, kerrnel@...gle.com,
        Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
Subject: [PATCH RFC 11/12] sched/coresched: Check for dynamic changes in smt_mask

From: Vineeth Pillai <viremana@...ux.microsoft.com>

There are multiple loops in pick_next_task that iterate over CPUs in
smt_mask. During a hotplug event, sibling could be removed from the
smt_mask while pick_next_task is running. So we cannot trust the mask
across the different loops. This can confuse the logic.

Add a retry logic if smt_mask changes between the loops.

Reported-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Signed-off-by: Vineeth Pillai <viremana@...ux.microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
---
 kernel/sched/core.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 48a49168e57f..5da5b2317b21 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -4613,6 +4613,7 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
 	const struct sched_class *class;
 	const struct cpumask *smt_mask;
 	int i, j, cpu, occ = 0;
+	int smt_weight;
 	bool need_sync;
 
 	if (!sched_core_enabled(rq))
@@ -4648,6 +4649,9 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
 	cpu = cpu_of(rq);
 	smt_mask = cpu_smt_mask(cpu);
 
+retry_select:
+	smt_weight = cpumask_weight(smt_mask);
+
 	/*
 	 * core->core_task_seq, rq->core_pick_seq, rq->core_sched_seq
 	 *
@@ -4691,6 +4695,14 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
 			struct rq *rq_i = cpu_rq(i);
 			struct task_struct *p;
 
+			/*
+			 * During hotplug online a sibling can be added in
+			 * the smt_mask * while we are here. If so, we would
+			 * need to restart selection by resetting all over.
+			 */
+			if (unlikely(smt_weight != cpumask_weight(smt_mask)))
+				goto retry_select;
+
 			if (rq_i->core_pick)
 				continue;
 
@@ -4790,7 +4802,15 @@ next_class:;
 	for_each_cpu_or(i, smt_mask, cpumask_of(cpu)) {
 		struct rq *rq_i = cpu_rq(i);
 
-		WARN_ON_ONCE(!rq_i->core_pick);
+		WARN_ON_ONCE(smt_weight == cpumask_weight(smt_mask) && !rq->core_pick);
+
+		/*
+		 * During hotplug online a sibling can be added in the smt_mask
+		 * while we are here. We might have missed picking a task for it.
+		 * Ignore it now as a schedule on that sibling will correct itself.
+		 */
+		if (!rq_i->core_pick)
+			continue;
 
 		if (is_idle_task(rq_i->core_pick) && rq_i->nr_running)
 			rq_i->core_forceidle = true;
-- 
2.28.0.220.ged08abb693-goog