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: <20210520180318.GB10523@willie-the-truck>
Date:   Thu, 20 May 2021 19:03:18 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Cc:     Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
        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

Hi Dietmar,

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 07:55:27PM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 20/05/2021 18:00, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
> > On 5/20/21 5:06 PM, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> >> (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.
> >>
> > 
> > As far as I got, the case (1) would be spitted in two steps:
> > 
> >  - __sched_setscheduler() will work, then
> >  - execv() would fail because (span != p->cpus_ptr)
> > 
> > So... at the end, both (1) and (2) would result in a failure...
> > 
> > am I missing something?
> 
> Not sure. Reading this thread I was under the assumption that the only
> change would be the drop of this patch. But I assume there is also this
> 'if DL AC is on then let sched_setattr() fail for this 32bit task'.
> 
> IMHO, the current patch-stack w/o this patch should let (1) succeed with
> DL AC.

That's what I'm proposing, yes, but others (including Daniel) prefer to
fail the execve(). See my other reply just now for a summary [1].

Thanks!

Will

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210520180138.GA10523@willie-the-truck/T/#u