linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Prevent dead task groups from regaining cfs

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]

Date:   Thu, 4 Nov 2021 18:37:50 +0100
From:   Mathias Krause <minipli@...ecurity.net>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc:     Benjamin Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <Valentin.Schneider@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Odin Ugedal <odin@...d.al>,
        Kevin Tanguy <kevin.tanguy@...p.ovh.com>,
        Brad Spengler <spender@...ecurity.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Prevent dead task groups from regaining
 cfs_rq's

Am 04.11.21 um 17:49 schrieb Vincent Guittot:
> [snip]
> 
> Ok so we must have 2 GPs:
> 
> list_del_rcu(&tg->siblings);
> GP to wait for the end of ongoing walk_tg_tree_from : synchronize_rcu
> in your patch
> list_del_leaf_cfs_rq(tg->cfs_rq[cpu]); if on_list
> remove_entity_load_avg(tg->se[cpu]);
> GP to wait for the end of ongoing for_each_leaf_cfs_rq_safe (print_cfs_stats)
> kfree everything

Basically yes, but with my patch we already have these two, as there's
at least one RCU GP between after sched_offline_group() finishes and
sched_free_group() / cpu_cgroup_css_free() starts.

So we either use my patch as-is or move unregister_fair_sched_group() to
free_fair_sched_group() and use kfree_rcu() instead of kfree(). Both
approaches have pros and cons.

Pro for my version is the early unlinking of cfs_rq's for dead task
groups, so no surprises later on. Con is the explicit synchronize_rcu().

Pro for the kfree_rcu() approach is the lack of the explicit
synchronize_rcu() call, so no explicit blocking operation. Con is that
we have cfs_rq's re-added to dead task groups which feels wrong and need
to find a suitable member to overlap with the rcu_head in each involved
data type.

Which one do you prefer?

Thanks,
Mathias