linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] sched/task: Add the put_task_struct_atomic

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: <CAAq0SUnUH6DEjwEs2RxRCtkTU121JXpdsV_rZky1d0Bo04=fiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 30 Jan 2023 08:49:48 -0300
From:   Wander Lairson Costa <wander@...hat.com>
To:     Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
Cc:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...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>,
        Stafford Horne <shorne@...il.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>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] sched/task: Add the put_task_struct_atomic_safe function

On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 12:55 PM Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On 23/01/23 14:24, Wander Lairson Costa wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 1:30 PM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 01/20, Wander Lairson Costa wrote:
> >> >
> >> > +static inline void put_task_struct_atomic_safe(struct task_struct *task)
> >> > +{
> >> > +     if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT)) {
> >> > +             /*
> >> > +              * Decrement the refcount explicitly to avoid unnecessarily
> >> > +              * calling call_rcu.
> >> > +              */
> >> > +             if (refcount_dec_and_test(&task->usage))
> >> > +                     /*
> >> > +                      * under PREEMPT_RT, we can't call put_task_struct
> >> > +                      * in atomic context because it will indirectly
> >> > +                      * acquire sleeping locks.
> >> > +                      */
> >> > +                     call_rcu(&task->rcu, __delayed_put_task_struct);
> >>                                   ^^^^^^^^^
> >> I am not sure the usage of task->rcu is safe...
> >>
> >> Suppose that, before __delayed_put_task_struct() is called by RCU, this task
> >> does the last schedule and calls put_task_struct_rcu_user().
> >>
> >> And, can't we simply turn put_task_struct() into something like
> >>
> >>         put_task_struct(struct task_struct *t)
> >>         {
> >>                 if (refcount_dec_and_test(&t->usage)) {
> >>                         if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT)
> >>                             && (in_atomic() || irqs_disabled()))
> >>                                 call_rcu(...);
> >>                         else
> >>                                 __put_task_struct(t);
> >>                 }
> >>         }
> >>
> >> ?
> >
> > Yeah, that was one approach I thought about. I chose to use an
> > explicit function because I assumed calling __put_task_struct() from a
> > non-preemptable context should be the exception, not the rule.
>
> I'd tend to agree.
>
> > Therefore (if I am correct in my assumption), it would make sense for
> > only some call sites to pay the overhead price for it. But this is
> > just a guess, and I have no evidence to support my claim.
>
> My worry here is that it's easy to miss problematic callgraphs, and it's
> potentially easy for new ones to creep in. Having a solution within
> put_task_struct() itself would prevent that.
>

We could add a WARN_ON statement in put_task_struct() to detect such cases.

> Another thing, if you look at release_task_stack(), it either caches the
> outgoing stack for later use, or frees it via RCU (regardless of
> PREEMPT_RT). Perhaps we could follow that and just always punt the freeing
> of the task struct to RCU?
>

That's a point. Do you mean doing that even for !PREEMPT_RT?