linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Fix put_task_struct() calls under PREEMPT

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: <xhsmhy1pxgkwy.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb>
Date:   Fri, 20 Jan 2023 17:45:01 +0000
From:   Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
To:     Wander Lairson Costa <wander@...hat.com>,
        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>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        "Russell King (Oracle)" <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Wander Lairson Costa <wander@...hat.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Fix put_task_struct() calls under PREEMPT_RT

On 20/01/23 12:02, Wander Lairson Costa wrote:
> put_task_struct() decrements a usage counter and calls
> __put_task_struct() if the counter reaches zero.
>
> __put_task_struct() indirectly acquires a spinlock, which is a sleeping
> lock under PREEMPT_RT. Therefore, we can't call put_task_struct() in an
> atomic context in RT kernels.
>
> This patch series introduces put_task_struct_atomic_safe(), which defers
> the call to __put_task_struct() to a process context when compiled with
> PREEMPT_RT.
>
> It also fixes known problematic call sites.
>

Browsing around put_task_struct() callsites gives me the impression there
are more problematic call sites lurking around, which makes me wonder:
should we make the PREEMPT_RT put_task_struct() *always* be done via
call_rcu()?

The task's stack is actually always freed that way in put_task_stack(), cf.

  e540bf3162e8 ("fork: Only cache the VMAP stack in finish_task_switch()")

> Changelog:
> ==========
>
> v2:
>  * Add the put_task_struct_atomic_safe() function that is responsible for
>    handling the conditions to call put_task_struct().
>  * Replace put_task_struct() by put_task_struct_atomic_safe() in known
>    atomic call sites.
>
> Wander Lairson Costa (4):
>   sched/task: Add the put_task_struct_atomic_safe function
>   sched/deadline: fix inactive_task_timer splat
>   sched/rt: use put_task_struct_atomic_safe() to avoid potential splat
>   sched/core: use put_task_struct_atomic_safe() to avoid potential splat
>
>  include/linux/sched/task.h | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
>  kernel/fork.c              |  8 ++++++++
>  kernel/sched/core.c        |  2 +-
>  kernel/sched/deadline.c    |  2 +-
>  kernel/sched/rt.c          |  4 ++--
>  5 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.39.0