[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aImynqM32NKYDoE6@gpd4>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 07:50:22 +0200
From: Andrea Righi <arighi@...dia.com>
To: Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@....com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, void@...ifault.com,
sched-ext@...ts.linux.dev,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched_ext: Mark scx_bpf_cpu_rq as NULL returnable
Hi Christian,
On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 05:03:36PM +0100, Christian Loehle wrote:
> scx_bpf_cpu_rq() obviously returns NULL on invalid cpu.
> Mark it as such.
Makes sense. Maybe add something like the following to the commit message
to better justify why we want the verifier to enforce the NULL check:
While scx_ops_error() is triggered on invalid CPUs, the BPF scheduler
doesn't exit immediately, so there's a window where scx_bpf_cpu_rq() may
return NULL and still be dereferenced.
With something like that:
Acked-by: Andrea Righi <arighi@...dia.com>
Thanks,
-Andrea
>
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> Fixes: 6203ef73fa5c ("sched/ext: Add BPF function to fetch rq")
> Signed-off-by: Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@....com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/ext.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/ext.c b/kernel/sched/ext.c
> index 7dd5cbcb7a06..b734f55f3318 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/ext.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/ext.c
> @@ -7599,7 +7599,7 @@ BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, scx_bpf_get_online_cpumask, KF_ACQUIRE)
> BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, scx_bpf_put_cpumask, KF_RELEASE)
> BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, scx_bpf_task_running, KF_RCU)
> BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, scx_bpf_task_cpu, KF_RCU)
> -BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, scx_bpf_cpu_rq)
> +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, scx_bpf_cpu_rq, KF_RET_NULL)
> #ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_SCHED
> BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, scx_bpf_task_cgroup, KF_RCU | KF_ACQUIRE)
> #endif
> --
> 2.34.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists