linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 08/16] sched: Allow task CPU affinity to be restricted on asymmetric systems

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, 17 Aug 2021 17:10:53 +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>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 08/16] sched: Allow task CPU affinity to be
 restricted on asymmetric systems

On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 12:24:35PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> @@ -2783,20 +2778,173 @@ static int __set_cpus_allowed_ptr(struct task_struct *p,
>  
>  	__do_set_cpus_allowed(p, new_mask, flags);
>  
> -	return affine_move_task(rq, p, &rf, dest_cpu, flags);
> +	if (flags & SCA_USER)
> +		release_user_cpus_ptr(p);
> +
> +	return affine_move_task(rq, p, rf, dest_cpu, flags);
>  
>  out:
> -	task_rq_unlock(rq, p, &rf);
> +	task_rq_unlock(rq, p, rf);
>  
>  	return ret;
>  }

> +void relax_compatible_cpus_allowed_ptr(struct task_struct *p)
> +{
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +	struct cpumask *mask = p->user_cpus_ptr;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Try to restore the old affinity mask. If this fails, then
> +	 * we free the mask explicitly to avoid it being inherited across
> +	 * a subsequent fork().
> +	 */
> +	if (!mask || !__sched_setaffinity(p, mask))
> +		return;
> +
> +	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&p->pi_lock, flags);
> +	release_user_cpus_ptr(p);
> +	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&p->pi_lock, flags);
> +}

Both these are a problem on RT.

The easiest recourse is simply never freeing the CPU mask (except on
exit). The alternative is something like the below I suppose..

I'm leaning towards the former option, wdyt?

--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -2733,6 +2733,7 @@ static int __set_cpus_allowed_ptr_locked
 	const struct cpumask *cpu_allowed_mask = task_cpu_possible_mask(p);
 	const struct cpumask *cpu_valid_mask = cpu_active_mask;
 	bool kthread = p->flags & PF_KTHREAD;
+	struct cpumask *user_mask = NULL;
 	unsigned int dest_cpu;
 	int ret = 0;
 
@@ -2792,9 +2793,13 @@ static int __set_cpus_allowed_ptr_locked
 	__do_set_cpus_allowed(p, new_mask, flags);
 
 	if (flags & SCA_USER)
-		release_user_cpus_ptr(p);
+		swap(user_mask, p->user_cpus_ptr);
+
+	ret = affine_move_task(rq, p, rf, dest_cpu, flags);
+
+	kfree(user_mask);
 
-	return affine_move_task(rq, p, rf, dest_cpu, flags);
+	return ret;
 
 out:
 	task_rq_unlock(rq, p, rf);
@@ -2954,8 +2959,10 @@ void relax_compatible_cpus_allowed_ptr(s
 		return;
 
 	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&p->pi_lock, flags);
-	release_user_cpus_ptr(p);
+	p->user_cpus_ptr = NULL;
 	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&p->pi_lock, flags);
+
+	kfree(mask);
 }
 
 void set_task_cpu(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int new_cpu)