linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 13/21] sched: Admit forcefully-affined tasks into SCHED

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: <0dbdfe1e-dede-d33d-ca89-768a1fa3c907@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 May 2021 17:06:42 +0200
From:   Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
To:     Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.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>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 13/21] sched: Admit forcefully-affined tasks into
 SCHED_DEADLINE

On 20/05/2021 14:38, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
> On 5/20/21 12:33 PM, Quentin Perret wrote:
>> On Thursday 20 May 2021 at 11:16:41 (+0100), Will Deacon wrote:
>>> Ok, thanks for the insight. In which case, I'll go with what we discussed:
>>> require admission control to be disabled for sched_setattr() but allow
>>> execve() to a 32-bit task from a 64-bit deadline task with a warning (this
>>> is probably similar to CPU hotplug?).
>>
>> Still not sure that we can let execve go through ... It will break AC
>> all the same, so it should probably fail as well if AC is on IMO
>>
> 
> If the cpumask of the 32-bit task is != of the 64-bit task that is executing it,
> the admission control needs to be re-executed, and it could fail. So I see this
> operation equivalent to sched_setaffinity(). This will likely be true for future
> schedulers that will allow arbitrary affinities (AC should run on affinity
> change, and could fail).
> 
> I would vote with Juri: "I'd go with fail hard if AC is on, let it
> pass if AC is off (supposedly the user knows what to do)," (also hope nobody
> complains until we add better support for affinity, and use this as a motivation
> to get back on this front).
> 
> -- Daniel

(1) # chrt -d -T 5000000 -P 16666666 0 ./32bit_app

(2) # ./32bit_app &

    # chrt -d -T 5000000 -P 16666666 -p 0 pid_of(32bit_app)


Wouldn't the behaviour of (1) and (2) be different w/o this patch?

In (1) __sched_setscheduler() happens before execve so it operates on
p->cpus_ptr equal span.

In (2) span != p->cpus_ptr so DL AC will fail.