linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6] sched: do not call __put_task_struct() on rt if pi_blocked

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: <20250729114702.GA18541@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2025 13:47:03 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lgoncalv@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
	Clark Williams <clrkwllms@...nel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	David Vernet <dvernet@...a.com>, Barret Rhoden <brho@...gle.com>,
	Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>, Crystal Wood <crwood@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-devel@...ts.linux.dev,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Wander Lairson Costa <wander@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] sched: do not call __put_task_struct() on rt if
 pi_blocked_on is set

On 07/29, Luis Claudio R. Goncalves wrote:
>
> From: Luis Claudio R. Goncalves <lgoncalv@...hat.com>
> Subject: sched: restore the behavior of put_task_struct() for non-rt
>
> Commit 8671bad873eb ("sched: Do not call __put_task_struct() on rt
> if pi_blocked_on is set") changed the behavior of put_task_struct()
> unconditionally, even when PREEMPT_RT was not enabled, in clear mismatch
> with the commit description.
>
> Restore the previous behavior of put_task_struct() for the PREEMPT_RT
> disabled case.
>
> Fixes: 8671bad873eb ("sched: Do not call __put_task_struct() on rt if pi_blocked_on is set")
> Signed-off-by: Luis Claudio R. Goncalves <lgoncalv@...hat.com>
> ---
> diff --git a/include/linux/sched/task.h b/include/linux/sched/task.h
> index ea41795a352b..51678a541477 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sched/task.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched/task.h
> @@ -130,6 +133,16 @@ static inline void put_task_struct(struct task_struct *t)
>  	if (!refcount_dec_and_test(&t->usage))
>  		return;
>
> +	/* In !RT, it is always safe to call __put_task_struct(). */
> +	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT)) {
> +		static DEFINE_WAIT_OVERRIDE_MAP(put_task_map, LD_WAIT_SLEEP);
> +
> +		lock_map_acquire_try(&put_task_map);
> +		__put_task_struct(t);
> +		lock_map_release(&put_task_map);
> +		return;
> +	}

FWIW:

Acked-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>


At the same time... I don't understand this DEFINE_WAIT_OVERRIDE_MAP().
IIUC, we need to shut up lockdep when put_task_struct() is called under
raw_spinlock_t and __put_task_struct() paths take spinlock_t, right?
Perhaps this deserves a comment...

But if I am right, why LD_WAIT_SLEEP? LD_WAIT_CONFIG should equally work, no?

LD_WAIT_SLEEP can fool lockdep more than we need, suppose that __put_task_struct()
does mutex_lock(). Not really a problem, might_sleep/etc will complain in this
case, but still.

Or I am totally confused?

Oleg.