linux-kernel - Re: BUG: HANG_DETECT waiting for migration_cpu

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: <YxeylMvgc/wKcJqk@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 6 Sep 2022 22:50:28 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Jing-Ting Wu <jing-ting.wu@...iatek.com>,
        Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@...cinc.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
        wsd_upstream@...iatek.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, Jonathan.JMChen@...iatek.com,
        "chris.redpath@....com" <chris.redpath@....com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort@...il.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        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>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, lixiong.liu@...iatek.com,
        wenju.xu@...iatek.com
Subject: Re: BUG: HANG_DETECT waiting for migration_cpu_stop() complete

On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 04:40:03PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:

I've not followed the earlier stuff due to being unreadable; just
reacting to this..

> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 838623b68031..5d9ea1553ec0 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -2794,9 +2794,9 @@ static int __set_cpus_allowed_ptr_locked(struct
> task_struct *p,
>                 if (cpumask_equal(&p->cpus_mask, new_mask))
>                         goto out;
> 
> -               if (WARN_ON_ONCE(p == current &&
> -                                is_migration_disabled(p) &&
> -                                !cpumask_test_cpu(task_cpu(p), new_mask)))
> {
> +               if (is_migration_disabled(p) &&
> +                   !cpumask_test_cpu(task_cpu(p), new_mask)) {
> +                       WARN_ON_ONCE(p == current);
>                         ret = -EBUSY;
>                         goto out;
>                 }
> @@ -2818,7 +2818,11 @@ static int __set_cpus_allowed_ptr_locked(struct
> task_struct *p,
>         if (flags & SCA_USER)
>                 user_mask = clear_user_cpus_ptr(p);
> 
> -       ret = affine_move_task(rq, p, rf, dest_cpu, flags);
> +       if (!is_migration_disabled(p) || (flags & SCA_MIGRATE_ENABLE)) {
> +               ret = affine_move_task(rq, p, rf, dest_cpu, flags);
> +       } else {
> +               task_rq_unlock(rq, p, rf);
> +       }

This cannot be right. There might be previous set_cpus_allowed_ptr()
callers that are blocked and waiting for the task to land on a valid
CPU.