linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] sched/eevdf: Prevent vlag from going out of bounds when reweight

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, 22 Apr 2024 17:59:37 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@...il.com>
Cc: Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan@...soc.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
	juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
	dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
	mgorman@...e.de, bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com,
	yu.c.chen@...el.com, ke.wang@...soc.com, di.shen@...soc.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/eevdf: Prevent vlag from going out of bounds
 when reweight_eevdf

On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 09:12:12PM +0800, Xuewen Yan wrote:

> By adding a log to observe weight changes in reweight_entity, I found
> that calc_group_shares() often causes new_weight to become very small:

Yes, cgroups do that. But over-all that should not matter no?

Specifically, the whole re-weight thing turns into a series like:

            w_0   w_1         w_n-1   w_0
	S = --- * --- * ... * ----- = ---
	    w_1   w_2          w_n    w_n

Where S is our ultimate scale factor.

So even if w_m (0 < m < n) is 2, it completely disappears. But yes, it
will create a big term, which is why the initial vlag should be limited.

Notably, nice should not exceed 88761*1024 / 2, but I'm not sure I
remember the limits (if there are any on the cgrou pmuck).

But if roughly 27 bits go to weight, then vlag should not exceed 36,
which should be well within the slice limit iirc.

Also, as said before, due to integer division being truncating, the
actual S should be smaller than the expected S due to error
accumulation.

Anyway, the things to verify are:

 - the S series is complete -- missing terms will mess things up right
   quick;

 - the limits on both the weight and vlag part, their sum exceeding
   63bit (plut 1 for sign) will also mess things up.