linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 14/19] sched, lockdep: Annotate ->pi

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, 29 Oct 2020 16:27:16 +0000
From:   Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        bigeasy@...utronix.de, qais.yousef@....com, swood@...hat.com,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
        mgorman@...e.de, bristot@...hat.com, vincent.donnefort@....com,
        tj@...nel.org, ouwen210@...mail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 14/19] sched, lockdep: Annotate ->pi_lock recursion


On 23/10/20 11:12, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> @@ -2617,6 +2618,20 @@ void sched_set_stop_task(int cpu, struct
>               sched_setscheduler_nocheck(stop, SCHED_FIFO, &param);
>
>               stop->sched_class = &stop_sched_class;
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * The PI code calls rt_mutex_setprio() with ->pi_lock held to
> +		 * adjust the effective priority of a task. As a result,
> +		 * rt_mutex_setprio() can trigger (RT) balancing operations,
> +		 * which can then trigger wakeups of the stop thread to push
> +		 * around the current task.
> +		 *
> +		 * The stop task itself will never be part of the PI-chain, it
> +		 * never blocks, therefore that ->pi_lock recursion is safe.

Isn't it that the stopper task can only run when preemption is re-enabled,
and the ->pi_lock is dropped before then?

If we were to have an SCA-like function that would kick the stopper but
"forget" to release the pi_lock, then we would very much like lockdep to
complain, right? Or is that something else entirely?

> +		 * Tell lockdep about this by placing the stop->pi_lock in its
> +		 * own class.
> +		 */
> +		lockdep_set_class(&stop->pi_lock, &stop_pi_lock);
>       }
>
>       cpu_rq(cpu)->stop = stop;