linux-kernel - Re: WARNING at kernel/sched/core.c:2013 migration_cpu

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: <20201117110620.GG3121378@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 17 Nov 2020 12:06:20 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Cc:     Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>,
        linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org
Subject: Re: WARNING at kernel/sched/core.c:2013
 migration_cpu_stop+0x2e3/0x330

On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 10:00:14AM +0000, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> 
> On 15/11/20 22:32, Oleksandr Natalenko wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > I'm running v5.10-rc3-rt7 for some time, and I came across this splat in 
> > dmesg:
> >
> > ```
> > [118769.951010] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > [118769.951013] WARNING: CPU: 19 PID: 146 at kernel/sched/core.c:2013 
> 
> Err, I didn't pick up on this back then, but isn't that check bogus? If the
> task is enqueued elsewhere, it's valid for it not to be affined
> 'here'. Also that is_migration_disabled() check within is_cpu_allowed()
> makes me think this isn't the best thing to call on a remote task.
> 
> ---
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 1218f3ce1713..47d5b677585f 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -2010,7 +2010,7 @@ static int migration_cpu_stop(void *data)
>  		 * valid again. Nothing to do.
>  		 */
>  		if (!pending) {
> -			WARN_ON_ONCE(!is_cpu_allowed(p, cpu_of(rq)));
> +			WARN_ON_ONCE(!cpumask_test_cpu(task_cpu(p), p->cpus_ptr));

Ho humm.. bit of a mess that. I'm trying to figure out if we need that
is_per_cpu_kthread() test here or not.

I suppose not, what we want here is to ensure the CPU is in cpus_mask
and not care about the whole hotplug mess.

Would it makes sense to replace both instances in migration_cpu_stop()
with:

	WARN_ON_ONCE(!cpumask_test_cpu(task_cpu(p), p->cpus_mask));

?