linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/rt: Plug rt_mutex_setprio() vs push_rt

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:   Mon, 24 Jan 2022 16:47:01 +0100
From:   Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
To:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     John Keeping <john@...anate.com>, 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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/rt: Plug rt_mutex_setprio() vs push_rt_task() race

On 24/01/2022 14:29, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> On 24/01/22 10:37, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>> On 20/01/2022 20:40, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/rt.c b/kernel/sched/rt.c
>>> index 7b4f4fbbb404..48fc8c04b038 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/sched/rt.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/sched/rt.c
>>> @@ -2026,6 +2026,16 @@ static int push_rt_task(struct rq *rq, bool pull)
>>>  		return 0;
>>>  
>>>  retry:
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * It's possible that the next_task slipped in of
>>> +	 * higher priority than current. If that's the case
>>> +	 * just reschedule current.
>>> +	 */
>>> +	if (unlikely(next_task->prio < rq->curr->prio)) {
>>> +		resched_curr(rq);
>>> +		return 0;
>>> +	}
>>
>> If we do this before `is_migration_disabled(next_task), shouldn't then
>> the related condition in push_dl_task() also be moved up?
>>
>>   if (dl_task(rq->curr) &&
>>     dl_time_before(next_task->dl.deadline, rq->curr->dl.deadline) &&
>>     rq->curr->nr_cpus_allowed > 1)
>>
>> To enforce resched_curr(rq) in the `is_migration_disabled(next_task)`
>> case there as well?
>>
> 
> I'm not sure if we can hit the same issue with DL since DL doesn't have the
> push irqwork. If there are DL tasks on the rq when current gets demoted,
> switched_from_dl() won't queue pull_dl_task().

True. But with your RT change we reschedule current (CFS task or lower
rt task than next_task) now even in case next task is
migration-disabled. I.e. we prefer rescheduling over pushing current away.

But for DL we wouldn't reschedule current in such a case, we would just
return 0.

That said, the prio based check in RT includes other sched classes where
the DL check only compares DL tasks.

> That said, if say we have DL tasks on the rq and demote the current DL task
> to RT, do we currently have anything that will call resched_curr() (I'm
> looking at the rt_mutex path)?
> switched_to_fair() has a resched_curr() (which helps for the RT -> CFS
> case), I don't see anything that would give us that in switched_from_dl() /
> switched_to_rt(), or am I missing something?
> 
>>> +
>>>  	if (is_migration_disabled(next_task)) {
>>>  		struct task_struct *push_task = NULL;
>>>  		int cpu;
>>> @@ -2033,6 +2043,17 @@ static int push_rt_task(struct rq *rq, bool pull)
>>>  		if (!pull || rq->push_busy)
>>>  			return 0;
>>>  
>>> +		/*
>>> +		 * Per the above priority check, curr is at least RT. If it's
>>> +		 * of a higher class than RT, invoking find_lowest_rq() on it
>>> +		 * doesn't make sense.
>>> +		 *
>>> +		 * Note that the stoppers are masqueraded as SCHED_FIFO
>>> +		 * (cf. sched_set_stop_task()), so we can't rely on rt_task().
>>> +		 */
>>> +		if (rq->curr->sched_class != &rt_sched_class)
>>
>> s/ != / > / ... since the `unlikely(next_task->prio < rq->curr->prio)`
>> already filters tasks from lower sched classes (CFS)?
>>
> 
> != points out we won't invoke find_lowest_rq() on anything that isn't RT,
> which makes it a bit clearer IMO, and it's not like either of those
> comparisons is more expensive than the other :)

Also true, but it would be more aligned to the comment above '...  If it
(i.e. curr) 's of a higher class than ...'

[...]