linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched: Add a new version sysctl to control child runs first

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: <20210913134245.GD4323@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 13 Sep 2021 15:42:45 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     CGEL <cgel.zte@...il.com>
Cc:     yzaikin@...gle.com, liu.hailong6@....com.cn, mingo@...hat.com,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
        mgorman@...e.de, bristot@...hat.com, mcgrof@...nel.org,
        keescook@...omium.org, pjt@...gle.com, yang.yang29@....com.cn,
        joshdon@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Zeal Robot <zealci@....com.cm>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Add a new version sysctl to control child runs
 first

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 11:37:31AM +0000, CGEL wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 10:13:54AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 04:12:23AM +0000, cgel.zte@...il.com wrote:
> > > From: Yang Yang <yang.yang29@....com.cn>
> > > 
> > > The old version sysctl has some problems. First, it allows set value
> > > bigger than 1, which is unnecessary. Second, it didn't follow the
> > > rule of capabilities. Thirdly, it didn't use static key. This new
> > > version fixes all the problems.
> > 
> > Does any of that actually matter?
> 
> For the first problem, I think the reason why sysctl_schedstats() only
> accepts 0 or 1, is suitbale for sysctl_child_runs_first(). Since
> task_fork_fair() only need sysctl_sched_child_runs_first to be
> zero or non-zero.

This could potentially break people that already write a larger value in
it -- by accident or otherwise.

> For the second problem, I remember there is a rule: try to
> administration system through capilities but not depends on
> root identity. Just like sysctl_schedstats() or other
> sysctl_xx().

It seems entirely daft to me; those files are already 644, if root opens
the file and passes it along, it gets to keep the pieces.

> For the thirdly problem, sysctl_child_runs_first maynot changes
> often, but may accessed often, like static_key delayacct_key
> controlled by sysctl_delayacct().

Can you actually show it makes a performance difference in a fork
micro-bench? Given the amount of gunk fork() already does, I don't think
it'll matter one way or the other, and in that case, simpler is better.