linux-kernel - Re: [LTP] [PATCH] sched/rt: Disallow writing invalid values to sched_rt_period

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: <20230902202213.GA418654@pevik>
Date:   Sat, 2 Sep 2023 22:22:13 +0200
From:   Petr Vorel <pvorel@...e.cz>
To:     Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@...e.cz>
Cc:     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>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ltp@...ts.linux.it
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] sched/rt: Disallow writing invalid values to
 sched_rt_period_us

> Hi!
> > Documentation/scheduller/sched-rt-group.rst [1] specifies this as values from -1 to
> > (INT_MAX - 1), I guess due int range. Looking into proc_dointvec_minmax() [2]
> > even INT_MAX would pass the check. I suppose we can do nothing about that,
> > because there is no value in sysctl_vals[] which would represent INT_MAX - 1.

> > And you specify in LTP test range: from -1 to INT_MAX.

> > But even much shorter value than INT_MAX fails:

> > $ echo 1234567 > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_rt_runtime_us
> > sh: echo: write error: Invalid argument

> That is because runtime_us must be < period_us by definition, since
> runtime_us defines how much time is allocated from the period_us. I
> guess that this is not described good enough in the kernel docs.

Thanks for clarification. +1 for docs update.

Kind regards,
Petr