| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <YLiwahWvnnkeL+vc@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2021 12:35:22 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc: 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>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
kernel-team@...roid.com, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] freezer,sched: Rewrite core freezer logic
On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 01:54:53PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> There's also Documentation/power/freezing-of-tasks.rst to update. I'm not
Since it's .rst, the only update I'm willing to do is delete it
outright.
> sure if fs/proc/array.c should be updated to display frozen tasks; I
> couldn't see how that was useful, but thought I'd mention it anyway.
Yeah, I considered it too, but I figured that if we're all frozen
there's noone left to observe us being frozen, so I didn't bother.
> > diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> > index 2982cfab1ae9..bfadc1dbcf24 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> > @@ -95,7 +95,12 @@ struct task_group;
> > #define TASK_WAKING 0x0200
> > #define TASK_NOLOAD 0x0400
> > #define TASK_NEW 0x0800
> > -#define TASK_STATE_MAX 0x1000
> > +#define TASK_FREEZABLE 0x1000
> > +#define __TASK_FREEZABLE_UNSAFE 0x2000
>
> Give that this is only needed to avoid lockdep checks, maybe we should avoid
> allocating the bit if lockdep is not enabled? Otherwise, people might start
> to use it for other things.
Something like
#define __TASK_FREEZABLE_UNSAFE (0x2000 * IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOCKDEP))
?
> > +#define TASK_FROZEN 0x4000
> > +#define TASK_STATE_MAX 0x8000
> > +
> > +#define TASK_FREEZABLE_UNSAFE (TASK_FREEZABLE | __TASK_FREEZABLE_UNSAFE)
>
> We probably want to preserve the "DO NOT ADD ANY NEW CALLERS OF THIS STATE"
> comment for the unsafe stuff.
Done.
> > +/* Recursion relies on tail-call optimization to not blow away the stack */
> > +static bool __frozen(struct task_struct *p)
> > +{
> > + if (p->state == TASK_FROZEN)
> > + return true;
>
> READ_ONCE()?
task_struct::state is volatile -- for now. I've got other patches to
deal with that.
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If stuck in TRACED, and the ptracer is FROZEN, we're frozen too.
> > + */
> > + if (task_is_traced(p))
> > + return frozen(rcu_dereference(p->parent));
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If stuck in STOPPED and the parent is FROZEN, we're frozen too.
> > + */
> > + if (task_is_stopped(p))
> > + return frozen(rcu_dereference(p->real_parent));
>
> This looks convincing, but I really can't tell if we're missing anything.
Yeah, Oleg would be the one to tell us I suppose.
> > +static bool __freeze_task(struct task_struct *p)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > + unsigned int state;
> > + bool frozen = false;
> > +
> > + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&p->pi_lock, flags);
> > + state = READ_ONCE(p->state);
> > + if (state & TASK_FREEZABLE) {
> > + /*
> > + * Only TASK_NORMAL can be augmented with TASK_FREEZABLE,
> > + * since they can suffer spurious wakeups.
> > + */
> > + WARN_ON_ONCE(!(state & TASK_NORMAL));
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> > + /*
> > + * It's dangerous to freeze with locks held; there be dragons there.
> > + */
> > + if (!(state & __TASK_FREEZABLE_UNSAFE))
> > + WARN_ON_ONCE(debug_locks && p->lockdep_depth);
> > +#endif
> > +
> > + p->state = TASK_FROZEN;
> > + frozen = true;
> > + }
> > + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&p->pi_lock, flags);
> > +
> > + return frozen;
> > +}
> > +
> > /**
> > * freeze_task - send a freeze request to given task
> > * @p: task to send the request to
> > @@ -116,20 +173,8 @@ bool freeze_task(struct task_struct *p)
> > {
> > unsigned long flags;
> >
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&freezer_lock, flags);
> > + if (!freezing(p) || frozen(p) || __freeze_task(p)) {
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&freezer_lock, flags);
> > return false;
> > }
>
> I've been trying to figure out how this serialises with ttwu(), given that
> frozen(p) will go and read p->state. I suppose it works out because only the
> freezer can wake up tasks from the FROZEN state, but it feels a bit brittle.
p->pi_lock; both ttwu() and __freeze_task() (which is essentially a
variant of set_special_state()) take ->pi_lock. I'll put in a comment.
> > @@ -137,7 +182,7 @@ bool freeze_task(struct task_struct *p)
> > if (!(p->flags & PF_KTHREAD))
> > fake_signal_wake_up(p);
> > else
> > - wake_up_state(p, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> > + wake_up_state(p, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); // TASK_NORMAL ?!?
> >
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&freezer_lock, flags);
> > return true;
> > @@ -148,8 +193,8 @@ void __thaw_task(struct task_struct *p)
> > unsigned long flags;
> >
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&freezer_lock, flags);
> > - if (frozen(p))
> > - wake_up_process(p);
> > + WARN_ON_ONCE(freezing(p));
> > + wake_up_state(p, TASK_FROZEN | TASK_NORMAL);
>
> Why do we need TASK_NORMAL here?
It's a left-over from hacking, but I left it in because anything
TASK_NORMAL should be able to deal with spuriuos wakeups, something
try_to_freeze() now also relies on.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists