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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 23 Feb 2021 21:15:59 -0800
From:   Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>
To:     Chris Hyser <chris.hyser@...cle.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        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>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, mingo@...nel.org,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, fweisbec@...il.com,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Greg Kerr <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,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Patrick Bellasi <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>,
        Jesse Barnes <jsbarnes@...gle.com>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...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 Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 11:26 AM Chris Hyser <chris.hyser@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/23/21 4:05 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 11:00:37PM -0500, Chris Hyser wrote:
> >> On 1/22/21 8:17 PM, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> >> While trying to test the new prctl() code I'm working on, I ran into a bug I
> >> chased back into this v10 code. Under a fair amount of stress, when the
> >> function __sched_core_update_cookie() is ultimately called from
> >> sched_core_fork(), the system deadlocks or otherwise non-visibly crashes.
> >> I've not had much success figuring out why/what. I'm running with LOCKDEP on
> >> and seeing no complaints. Duplicating it only requires setting a cookie on a
> >> task and forking a bunch of threads ... all of which then want to update
> >> their cookie.
> >
> > Can you share the code and reproducer?
>
> Attached is a tarball with c code (source) and scripts. Just run ./setup_bug which will compile the source and start a
> bash with a cs cookie. Then run ./show_bug which dumps the cookie and then fires off some processes and threads. Note
> the cs_clone command is not doing any core sched prctls for this test (not needed and currently coded for a diff prctl
> interface). It just creates processes and threads. I see this hang almost instantly.
>
> Josh, I did verify that this occurs on Joel's coresched tree both with and w/o the kprot patch and that should exactly
> correspond to these patches.
>
> -chrish
>

I think I've gotten to the root of this. In the fork code, our cases
for inheriting task_cookie are inverted for CLONE_THREAD vs
!CLONE_THREAD. As a result, we are creating a new cookie per-thread,
rather than inheriting from the parent. Now this is actually ok; I'm
not observing a scalability problem with creating this many cookies.
However, it means that overall throughput of your binary is cut in
~half, since none of the threads can share a core. Note that I never
saw an indefinite deadlock, just ~2x runtime for your binary vs the
control. I've verified that both a) manually hardcoding all threads to
be able to share regardless of cookie, and b) using a machine with 6
cores instead of 2, both allow your binary to complete in the same
amount of time as without the new API.