linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 2/5] sched: CGroup tagging interface for core scheduling

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, 4 Feb 2021 15:52:55 -0500
From:   Chris Hyser <chris.hyser@...cle.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc:     Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@...italocean.com>,
        Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Vineeth Pillai <viremana@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@...il.com>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, fweisbec@...il.com,
        keescook@...omium.org, kerrnel@...gle.com,
        Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, vineeth@...byteword.org,
        Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        Agata Gruza <agata.gruza@...el.com>,
        Antonio Gomez Iglesias <antonio.gomez.iglesias@...el.com>,
        graf@...zon.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com, dfaggioli@...e.com,
        pjt@...gle.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, derkling@...gle.com,
        benbjiang@...cent.com,
        Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>,
        James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com, OWeisse@...ch.edu,
        Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...cle.com>,
        Junaid Shahid <junaids@...gle.com>, jsbarnes@...gle.com,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>,
        Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 2/5] sched: CGroup tagging interface for core
 scheduling

On 2/4/21 8:57 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 08:17:01PM -0500, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
>> +/* Request the scheduler to share a core */
>> +#define PR_SCHED_CORE_SHARE		59
>> +# define PR_SCHED_CORE_CLEAR		0  /* clear core_sched cookie of pid */
>> +# define PR_SCHED_CORE_SHARE_FROM	1  /* get core_sched cookie from pid */
>> +# define PR_SCHED_CORE_SHARE_TO		2  /* push core_sched cookie to pid */
> 
> Why ?

The simplest interface would be a single 'set' command that specifies and sets a cookie value. Using 0 as a special 
value could then clear it. However, an early requirement that people seemed to agree with, is that cookies should be 
opaque and system guaranteed unique except when explicitly shared. Thus, since two tasks cannot share a cookie by 
explicitly setting the same cookie value, the prctl() must provide for a means of cookie sharing between tasks. The v9 
proposal had incorporated all of this into a single "from-only" command whose actions depended on the state of the two 
tasks. If neither have a cookie and one shares from the other, they both get the same new cookie. If the calling task 
had one and the other didn't, the calling task's cookie was cleared. And of course if the src task has a cookie, the 
caller just gets it. Does a lot, tad bit overloaded, and still insufficient.

A second complication was a decision that new processes (not threads) do not inherit their parents cookie. Thus forking 
is also not a means to share a cookie. Basically with a "from-only" interface, the new task would need to be modified to 
call prctl() itself. From-only also does not allow for setting a cookie on an unmodified already running task. This can 
be fixed by providing both a "to" and "from" sharing interface that allows helper programs to construct arbitrary 
configurations from unmodified programs.
> Also, how do I set a unique cookie on myself with this interface?

The v10 patch still uses the overloaded v9 mechanism (which as mentioned above is if two tasks w/o cookies share a 
cookie they get a new shared unique cookie). Yes, that is clearly an inconsistency and kludgy. The mechanism is 
documented in the docs, but clearly not obvious from the interface above. I think we got a bit overzealous in patch 
squashing and much of this verbiage should have been in the combined commit message.

So based on the above, how about we add a "create" to pair with "clear" and call it "create" vs "set" since we are 
creating a unique opaque cookie versus setting a particular value. And as mentioned, because one can't specify a cookie 
directly but only thru sharing relationships, we need both "to" and "from" to make it completely usable.

So we end up with something like this:
     PR_SCHED_CORE_CREATE                       -- give yourself a unique cookie
     PR_SCHED_CORE_CLEAR                        -- clear your core sched cookie
     PR_SCHED_CORE_SHARE_FROM <src_task>        -- get their cookie for you
     PR_SCHED_CORE_SHARE_TO   <dest_task>       -- push your cookie to them

An additional question is should the inheritability of a process' cookie be configurable? The current code gives the 
child process their own unique cookie if the parent had a cookie. That is useful in some cases, but many other 
configurations could be made much easier with inheritance.

If configurable cookie inheritance would be useful, it might look something like this:

PR_SCHED_CORE_CHILD_INHERIT <0/1>  -- 1 - child inherits cookie from parent. 0 - If parent has a cookie, child process 
gets a unique cookie.

-chrish