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]
Date:   Mon, 3 Apr 2023 18:47:36 +0200
From:   Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        gscrivan@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] cgroup/cpuset: Allow only one active attach
 operation per cpuset

On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 10:50:45AM -0400, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com> wrote:
> The current cpuset code uses the global cpuset_attach_old_cs variable
> to store the old cpuset value between consecutive cpuset_can_attach()
> and cpuset_attach() calls. Since a caller of cpuset_can_attach() may
> not need to hold the global cgroup_threadgroup_rwsem, parallel cpuset
> attach operations are possible.

Do I understand correctly this consequence of the cpuset_attach_task()
on the clone path?
In that particular case (with CLONE_INTO_CGROUP) cgroup_mutex is taken,
so the access the the old_cs variable should still be synchronized with
regular migrations that are also under cgroup_mutex.


> When there are concurrent cpuset attach operations in progress,
> cpuset_attach() may fetch the wrong value from cpuset_attach_old_cs
> causing incorrect result.  To avoid this problem while still allowing
> certain level of parallelism, drop cpuset_attach_old_cs and use a
> per-cpuset attach_old_cs value. Also restrict to at most one active
> attach operation per cpuset to avoid corrupting the value of the
> per-cpuset attach_old_cs value.

Secondly, semantically wouldn't a `void *ss_priv[CGROUP_SUBSYS_COUNT]`
in struct cgroup_taskset make it simpler wrt the exclusivity guarantees?

Thirdly, if my initial assumptino is right -- I'd suggest ordering this
before the patch `cgroup/cpuset: Make cpuset_fork() handle
CLONE_INTO_CGROUP properly` to spare backporters possible troubles if
this is would be a fixup to that.


Thanks,
Michal

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ