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: <aIjCYEkgNvVpMYCS@uudg.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2025 09:45:20 -0300
From: "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lgoncalv@...hat.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...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 Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 01:47:03PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 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...

I reverted that code to the previous state, commit 893cdaaa3977 ("sched:
avoid false lockdep splat in put_task_struct()") and simplified the "if"
statement. In the original code, PREEMPT_RT could call __put_task_struct()
if the context was preemptible. But in the proposed code __put_task_struct()
is only called if PREEMPT_RT is disabled. In this case I believe we could
simply do:

+	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT)) {
+		__put_task_struct(t);
+		return;
+	}

Does that make sense?

Luis
 
> 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.
> 
---end quoted text---