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

Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:53:59 +0800
From: Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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 Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 7:48 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 11:05:20AM +0800, Xuewen Yan wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 11:59 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Okay, I understand what you mean. Even if the weight during dequeue is
> > very small, the weight will be eliminated during enqueue.
> > In this case, the necessity of the !on_rq case does not seem to be
> > very important.
> >
> > On the other hand, the following case:
> > place_entity()
> > {
> > ...
> >  5244                 load = cfs_rq->avg_load;
> >  5245                 if (curr && curr->on_rq)
> >  5246                         load += scale_load_down(curr->load.weight);
> >  5247
> >  5248                 lag *= load + scale_load_down(se->load.weight);
> >  5249                 if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!load))
> >  5250                         load = 1;
> >  5251                 lag = div_s64(lag, load);<<<<
> > ...
> > }
>
> So this plays games with scale_load_down() because this is W, the sum of
> all w, which can indeed grow quite large and cause overflow.
>
> > reweight_eevdf()
> > {
> > ...
> >                  if (avruntime != se->vruntime) {
> >  3770                 vlag = entity_lag(avruntime, se);
> >  3771                 vlag = div_s64(vlag * old_weight, weight); <<<<
> >  3772                 se->vruntime = avruntime - vlag;
> >  3773         }
> > .....
> > }
>
> While here we're talking about a single w, which is much more limited in
> scope. And per the above, what we're trying to do is:
>
>   vlag = lag/w
>   lag/w * w/w' = lag/w'
>
> That is, move vlag from one w to another.
>
> > There is no need to clamp the above two positions because these two
> > calculations will not theoretically cause s64 overflow?
>
> Well, supposedly, if I didn't get it wrong etc.. (I do tend to get
> things wrong from time to time :-).
>
> I would think limited vlag would stay below 1 second or about 30 bits
> this leaves another 30 bits for w which *should* be enough.
>
> Anyway, if you're unsure, sprinkle some check_mul_overflow() and see if
> you can tickle it.

Okay, Thank you for your patient answer:)

BR
---
xuewen