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: <87mtkr76xy.mognet@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 Dec 2021 14:05:13 +0000
From:   Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To:     John Keeping <john@...anate.com>
Cc:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RT] BUG in sched/cpupri.c

On 23/12/21 11:58, John Keeping wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 07:48:33PM +0000, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> mark_wakeup_next_waiter() first deboosts the previous owner and then
>> wakeups the next top waiter. Seems like you somehow have the wakeup happen
>> before the push_rt_task IRQ work is run. Also, tell_cpu_to_push() should
>> only pick a CPU that is in rq->rd->rto_mask, which requires having at least
>> 2 RT tasks there...
>> 
>> Now, that wakeup from the rtmutex unlock would give us a resched_curr() via
>> check_preempt_curr() if required, which is good, though I think we are
>> still missing some for sched_setscheduler() (there are no wakeups
>> there). So if we just have to live with an IRQ work popping in before we
>> get to preempt_schedule_irq() (or somesuch), then perhaps the below would
>> be sufficient.
>
> With this patch I ran 100 reboots without hitting the BUG, so it looks
> like this is the solution!
>
> If you post this as a patch, feel free to add:
>
> 	Tested-by: John Keeping <john@...anate.com>

Thanks!

I still need to convince myself beyond reasonable doubt that this is really
what is happening (esp the sched_setscheduler()) part, so the next episode
will probably air after the break :-)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ