linux-kernel - Re: [bug-report] possible s64 overflow in max

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 31 Jan 2023 11:21:17 +0800
From:   Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
CC:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Roman Kagan <rkagan@...zon.de>,
        Zhang Qiao <zhangqiao22@...wei.com>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        "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>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [bug-report] possible s64 overflow in max_vruntime()

On 2023-01-27 at 17:18:56 +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 at 12:44, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 07:31:02PM +0100, Roman Kagan wrote:
> >
> > > > All that only matters for small sleeps anyway.
> > > >
> > > > Something like:
> > > >
> > > >         sleep_time = U64_MAX;
> > > >         if (se->avg.last_update_time)
> > > >           sleep_time = cfs_rq_clock_pelt(cfs_rq) - se->avg.last_update_time;
> > >
> > > Interesting, why not rq_clock_task(rq_of(cfs_rq)) - se->exec_start, as
> > > others were suggesting?  It appears to better match the notion of sleep
> > > wall-time, no?
> >
> > Should also work I suppose. cfs_rq_clock takes throttling into account,
> > but that should hopefully also not be *that* long, so either should
> > work.
> 
> yes rq_clock_task(rq_of(cfs_rq)) should be fine too
> 
> Another thing to take into account is the sleeper credit that the
> waking task deserves so the detection should be done once it has been
> subtracted from vruntime.
> 
> Last point, when a nice -20 task runs on a rq, it will take a bit more
> than 2 seconds for the vruntime to be increased by more than 24ms (the
> maximum credit that a waking task can get) so threshold must be
> significantly higher than 2 sec. On the opposite side, the lowest
> possible weight of a cfs rq is 2 which means that the problem appears
> for a sleep longer or equal to 2^54 = 2^63*2/1024. We should use this
> value instead of an arbitrary 200 days
Does it mean any threshold between 2 sec and 2^54 nsec should be fine? Because
1. Any task sleeps longer than 2 sec will get at most 24 ms(sysctl_sched_latency)
   'vruntime bonus' when enqueued.
2. Although a low weight cfs rq run for 2^54 nsec could trigger the overflow,
   we can choose threshold lower than 2^54 to avoid any overflow.

thanks,
Chenyu