linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 07/14] sched: Introduce restrict_cpus_allowed

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, 19 Nov 2020 14:54:32 +0000
From:   Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
        Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/14] sched: Introduce restrict_cpus_allowed_ptr() to limit task CPU affinity


On 19/11/20 13:13, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 11:27:55AM +0000, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>>
>> On 19/11/20 11:05, Will Deacon wrote:
>> > On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 09:18:20AM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote:
>> >> > @@ -1937,20 +1931,69 @@ static int __set_cpus_allowed_ptr(struct task_struct *p,
>> >> >             * OK, since we're going to drop the lock immediately
>> >> >             * afterwards anyway.
>> >> >             */
>> >> > -		rq = move_queued_task(rq, &rf, p, dest_cpu);
>> >> > +		rq = move_queued_task(rq, rf, p, dest_cpu);
>> >> >    }
>> >> >  out:
>> >> > -	task_rq_unlock(rq, p, &rf);
>> >> > +	task_rq_unlock(rq, p, rf);
>> >>
>> >> And that's a little odd to have here no? Can we move it back on the
>> >> caller's side?
>> >
>> > I don't think so, unfortunately. __set_cpus_allowed_ptr_locked() can trigger
>> > migration, so it can drop the rq lock as part of that and end up relocking a
>> > new rq, which it also unlocks before returning. Doing the unlock in the
>> > caller is therfore even weirder, because you'd have to return the lock
>> > pointer or something horrible like that.
>> >
>> > I did add a comment about this right before the function and it's an
>> > internal function to the scheduler so I think it's ok.
>> >
>>
>> An alternative here would be to add a new SCA_RESTRICT flag for
>> __set_cpus_allowed_ptr() (see migrate_disable() faff in
>> tip/sched/core). Not fond of either approaches, but the flag thing would
>> avoid this "quirk".
>
> I tried this when I read about the migrate_disable() stuff on lwn, but I
> didn't really find it any better to work with tbh. It also doesn't help
> with the locking that Quentin was mentioning, does it? (i.e. you still
> have to allocate).
>

You could keep it all bundled within __set_cpus_allowed_ptr() (i.e. not
have a _locked() version) and use the flag as indicator of any extra work.

Also FWIW we have this pattern of pre-allocating pcpu cpumasks
(select_idle_mask, load_balance_mask), but given this is AIUI a
very-not-hot path, this might be overkill (and reusing an existing one
would be on the icky side of things).

> Will