linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v3 8/9] sched: Fix CPU hotplug / tighten is_per_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]

Date:   Thu, 21 Jan 2021 14:36:00 +0000
From:   Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     mingo@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        jiangshanlai@...il.com, cai@...hat.com, vincent.donnefort@....com,
        decui@...rosoft.com, paulmck@...nel.org,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, tj@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v3 8/9] sched: Fix CPU hotplug / tighten is_per_cpu_kthread()

On 21/01/21 15:18, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 02:01:03PM +0000, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> On 21/01/21 11:17, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > @@ -7504,6 +7525,9 @@ int sched_cpu_deactivate(unsigned int cp
>> >        * preempt-disabled and RCU users of this state to go away such that
>> >        * all new such users will observe it.
>> >        *
>> > +	 * Specifically, we rely on ttwu to no longer target this CPU, see
>> > +	 * ttwu_queue_cond() and is_cpu_allowed().
>> > +	 *
>> 
>> So the last time ttwu_queue_wakelist() can append a task onto a dying
>> CPU's wakelist is before sched_cpu_deactivate()'s synchronize_rcu()
>> returns. 
>> 
>> As discussed on IRC, paranoia would have us issue a
>> 
>>   flush_smp_call_function_from_idle()
>> 
>> upon returning from said sync, but this will require further surgery.
>
> Right, specifically RCU needs a little more help there.
>
>> Do we want something like the below in the meantime? Ideally we'd warn on
>> setting rq->ttwu_pending when !cpu_active(), but as per the above this is
>> allowed before the synchronize_rcu() returns.
>
> I'm not sure I'm brave enough to add that just now :/

I get you; I couldn't come up with a better scheme that would give us a bit
more info than the sched_cpu_dying() splat :/