linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] sched/core: Use empty mask to reset cpumasks in sched

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <fe46e855-b812-c1c5-07ce-7a3715bcbd2e@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Aug 2023 13:43:34 -0400
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, 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>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
        Brent Rowsell <browsell@...hat.com>,
        Peter Hunt <pehunt@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/core: Use empty mask to reset cpumasks in
 sched_setaffinity()


On 7/21/23 05:42, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 02:02:43PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> Since commit 8f9ea86fdf99 ("sched: Always preserve the user requested
>> cpumask"), user provided CPU affinity via sched_setaffinity(2) is
>> perserved even if the task is being moved to a different cpuset. However,
>> that affinity is also being inherited by any subsequently created child
>> processes which may not want or be aware of that affinity.
>>
>> One way to solve this problem is to provide a way to back off from
>> that user provided CPU affinity.  This patch implements such a scheme
>> by using an empty cpumask to signal a reset of the cpumasks to the
>> default as allowed by the current cpuset.
>>
>> Before this patch, passing in an empty cpumask to sched_setaffinity(2)
>> will always return an EINVAL error. With this patch, an error will no
>> longer be returned if sched_setaffinity(2) has been called before to
>> set up user_cpus_ptr. Instead, the user_cpus_ptr that stores the user
>> provided affinity will be cleared and the task's CPU affinity will be
>> reset to that of the current cpuset. No error will be returned in this
>> case to signal that a reset has happened.
>>
>> If sched_setaffinity(2) has not been called previously, an EINVAL error
>> will be returned with an empty cpumask just like before. As a result,
>> tests or tools that rely on this behavior will not be affected unless
>> they have somehow called sched_setaffinity(2) before.
>>
>> We will have to update the sched_setaffinity(2) manpage to document
>> this possible side effect of passing in an empty cpumask.
> So a normal task, that hasn't had it's affinity changed will have
> possible_mask.
>
> So why not use in_mask == possible_mask to clear the user state?

It is not straight forward for a user application to figure what exactly 
is possible_mask. Using a empty mask, however, is much easier with the 
CPU_ZERO() macro.

In many cases, tasks may be running under a cpuset with cpu list that is 
a proper subset of possible_mask. Since possible_mask is a valid 
cpumask, we can't use it to reset to the cpuset's default which is what 
this patch is.

Cheers,
Longman