linux-kernel - Re: [BUG almost bisected] Splat in dequeue_rt

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: <xhsmh7cc0ogza.mognet@vschneid-thinkpadt14sgen2i.remote.csb>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 16:32:41 +0200
From: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
To: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
Cc: paulmck@...nel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sfr@...b.auug.org.au,
 linux-next@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: Re: [BUG almost bisected] Splat in dequeue_rt_stack() and build error

On 28/08/24 21:44, Chen Yu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2024-08-28 at 14:35:45 +0200, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> On 27/08/24 13:36, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 10:30:24PM +0200, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for the testing!
>> >>
>> >> The WARN_ON_ONCE(!rt_se->on_list); hit in __dequeue_rt_entity() feels like
>> >> a put_prev/set_next kind of issue...
>> >>
>> >> So far I'd assumed a ->sched_delayed task can't be current during
>> >> switched_from_fair(), I got confused because it's Mond^CCC Tuesday, but I
>> >> think that still holds: we can't get a balance_dl() or balance_rt() to drop
>> >> the RQ lock because prev would be fair, and we can't get a
>> >> newidle_balance() with a ->sched_delayed task because we'd have
>> >> sched_fair_runnable() := true.
>> >>
>> >> I'll pick this back up tomorrow, this is a task that requires either
>> >> caffeine or booze and it's too late for either.
>> >
>> > Thank you for chasing this, and get some sleep!  This one is of course
>> > annoying, but it is not (yet) an emergency.  I look forward to seeing
>> > what you come up with.
>> >
>> > Also, I would of course be happy to apply debug patches.
>> >
>> >                                                       Thanx, Paul
>>
>> Chen Yu made me realize [1] that dequeue_task() really isn't enough; the
>> dequeue_task() in e.g. __sched_setscheduler() won't have DEQUEUE_DELAYED,
>> so stuff will just be left on the CFS tree.
>>
>
> One question, although there is no DEQUEUE_DELAYED flag, it is possible
> the delayed task could be dequeued from CFS tree. Because the dequeue in
> set_schedule() does not have DEQUEUE_SLEEP. And in dequeue_entity():
>
>       bool sleep = flags & DEQUEUE_SLEEP;
>
>       if (flags & DEQUEUE_DELAYED) {
>
>       } else {
>               bool delay = sleep;
>               if (sched_feat(DELAY_DEQUEUE) && delay &&  //false
>                  !entity_eligible(cfs_rq, se) {
>               //do not dequeue
>               }
>       }
>
>       //dequeue the task    <---- we should reach here?
>

You're quite right, so really here the main missing bit would be the final
__block_task() that a DEQUEUE_DELAYED dequeue_entities() would get us.