linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v12 2/3] sched: Move task_mm_cid_work to mm work

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: <e916f393-b18c-4641-ace7-cf23b7508e09@efficios.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2025 11:53:05 -0400
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Gabriele Monaco <gmonaco@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 2/3] sched: Move task_mm_cid_work to mm work_struct

On 2025-04-09 11:20, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 10:15:42AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> On 2025-04-09 10:03, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 07:28:45AM +0100, Gabriele Monaco wrote:
>>>> +static inline void rseq_preempt_from_tick(struct task_struct *t)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	u64 rtime = t->se.sum_exec_runtime - t->se.prev_sum_exec_runtime;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (rtime > RSEQ_UNPREEMPTED_THRESHOLD)
>>>> +		rseq_preempt(t);
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> This confused me.
>>>
>>> The goal seems to be to tickle __rseq_handle_notify_resume() so it'll
>>> end up queueing that work thing. But why do we want to set PREEMPT_BIT
>>> here?
>>
>> In that scenario, we trigger (from tick) the fact that we may recompact the
>> mm_cid, and thus need to update the rseq mm_cid field before returning to
>> userspace.
>>
>> Changing the value of the mm_cid field while userspace is within a rseq
>> critical section should abort the critical section, because the rseq
>> critical section should be able to expect the mm_cid to be invariant
>> for the whole c.s..
> 
> But, if we run that compaction in a worker, what guarantees the
> compaction is done and mm_cid is stable, but the time this task returns
> to userspace again?

So let's say we have a task which is running and not preempted by any
other task on a cpu for a long time.

The idea is to have the tick do two things:

A) trigger the mm_cid recompaction,

B) trigger an update of the task's rseq->mm_cid field at some point
    after recompaction, so it can get a mm_cid value closer to 0.

So in its current form this patch will indeed trigger rseq_preempt()
for *every tick* after the task has run for more than 100ms, which
I don't think is intended. This should be fixed.

Also, doing just an rseq_preempt() is not the correct approach, as
AFAIU it won't force the long running task to release the currently
held mm_cid value.

I think we need something that looks like the following based on the
current patch:

- rename rseq_preempt_from_tick() to rseq_tick(),

- modify rseq_tick() to ensure it calls rseq_set_notify_resume(t)
   rather than rseq_preempt().

- modify rseq_tick() to ensure it only calls it once every
   RSEQ_UNPREEMPTED_THRESHOLD, rather than every tick after
   RSEQ_UNPREEMPTED_THRESHOLD.

- modify rseq_tick() so at some point after the work has
   compacted mm_cids, we do the same things as switch_mm_cid()
   does, namely to release the currently held cid and get a likely
   smaller one (closer to 0). If the value changes, then we should
   trigger rseq_preempt() so the task updates the mm_cid field before
   returning to userspace and restarts ongoing rseq critical section.

Thoughts ?

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com