linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched: Use user_cpus_ptr for saving user provided cpumask in sched

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: <8b5a5be9-9976-a737-952f-67a7960f175f@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 1 Aug 2022 13:15:25 -0400
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched: Use user_cpus_ptr for saving user provided
 cpumask in sched_setaffinity()

On 8/1/22 12:45, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 11:41:23AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> The user_cpus_ptr field is added by commit b90ca8badbd1 ("sched:
>> Introduce task_struct::user_cpus_ptr to track requested affinity"). It
>> is currently used only by arm64 arch due to possible asymmetric cpu
>> setup. This patch extends its usage to save user provided cpumask when
>> sched_setaffinity() is called for all arches.
>>
>> To preserve the existing arm64 use case, a new cpus_affinity_set flag is
>> added to differentiate if user_cpus_ptr is set up by sched_setaffinity()
>> or by force_compatible_cpus_allowed_ptr(). user_cpus_ptr
>> set by sched_setaffinity() has priority and won't be
>> overwritten by force_compatible_cpus_allowed_ptr() or
>> relax_compatible_cpus_allowed_ptr().
>>
>> As a call to sched_setaffinity() will no longer clear user_cpus_ptr
>> but set it instead, the SCA_USER flag is no longer necessary and can
>> be removed.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
>> ---
>>   include/linux/sched.h |  1 +
>>   kernel/sched/core.c   | 71 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>>   kernel/sched/sched.h  |  1 -
>>   3 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
>> index c46f3a63b758..60ae022fa842 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
>> @@ -815,6 +815,7 @@ struct task_struct {
>>   
>>   	unsigned int			policy;
>>   	int				nr_cpus_allowed;
>> +	int				cpus_affinity_set;
>>   	const cpumask_t			*cpus_ptr;
>>   	cpumask_t			*user_cpus_ptr;
>>   	cpumask_t			cpus_mask;
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> index da0bf6fe9ecd..7757828c7422 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> @@ -2607,6 +2607,7 @@ int dup_user_cpus_ptr(struct task_struct *dst, struct task_struct *src,
>>   		return -ENOMEM;
>>   
>>   	cpumask_copy(dst->user_cpus_ptr, src->user_cpus_ptr);
>> +	dst->cpus_affinity_set = src->cpus_affinity_set;
> I haven't been through this thorougly, but it looks a bit suspicious to me
> to inherit this field directly across fork(). If a 64-bit task with this
> flag set forks and then exec's a 32-bit program, arm64 will be in trouble if
> we're not able to override the affinity forcefully.

I believe you can still override the affinity. What is in user_cpus_ptr 
is not the actual affinity which is in cpus_mask. It is just what the 
users desire. Its value has be masked off by the current cpuset as well 
as what is allowed in task_cpu_possible_mask().

Cheers,
Longman