linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] sched: add READ_ONCE to task_on_rq

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: <20241115095052.GU22801@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 10:50:52 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Jon Kohler <jon@...anix.com>
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>,
	Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Harshit Agarwal <harshit@...anix.com>,
	Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched: add READ_ONCE to task_on_rq_queued

On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 02:08:11PM -0700, Jon Kohler wrote:
> From: Harshit Agarwal <harshit@...anix.com>
> 
> task_on_rq_queued read p->on_rq without READ_ONCE, though p->on_rq is
> set with WRITE_ONCE in {activate|deactivate}_task and smp_store_release
> in __block_task, and also read with READ_ONCE in task_on_rq_migrating.
> 
> Make all of these accesses pair together by adding READ_ONCE in the
> task_on_rq_queued.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Harshit Agarwal <harshit@...anix.com>
> Reviewed-by: Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
> Cc: Jon Kohler <jon@...anix.com>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/sched.h | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> index c03b3d7b320e..dbbe5ce0dd96 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
> +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> @@ -2277,7 +2277,7 @@ static inline int task_on_cpu(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
>  
>  static inline int task_on_rq_queued(struct task_struct *p)
>  {
> -	return p->on_rq == TASK_ON_RQ_QUEUED;
> +	return READ_ONCE(p->on_rq) == TASK_ON_RQ_QUEUED;
>  }

I think that strictly speaking we don't need it here, *IF* we see the
ON_RQ_QUEUED value, it must be stable.

But yeah, this is probably easier to reason about.

If you've got time, it might be worth to try something like:

	if (READ_ONCE(p->on_rq) == TASK_ON_RQ_QUEUED) {
		/*
		 * If we observe ON_RQ_QUEUED, it should be stable. IOW
		 * there should be no concurrent writes at this point.
		 */
		ASSERT_EXCLUSIVE_WRITER(p->on_rq);
		return true;
	}
	return false;