[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250812080046.GF4067720@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2025 10:00:46 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@....com>
Cc: tj@...nel.org, arighi@...dia.com, void@...ifault.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sched-ext@...ts.linux.dev,
changwoo@...lia.com, hodgesd@...a.com, mingo@...hat.com,
jake@...lion.co.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] sched_ext: Harden scx_bpf_cpu_rq()
On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 10:21:47PM +0100, Christian Loehle wrote:
> scx_bpf_cpu_rq() currently allows accessing struct rq fields without
> holding the associated rq.
> It is being used by scx_cosmos, scx_flash, scx_lavd, scx_layered, and
> scx_tickless. Fortunately it is only ever used to fetch rq->curr.
> So provide an alternative scx_bpf_task_acquire_remote_curr() that
> doesn't expose struct rq and provide a hardened scx_bpf_cpu_rq_locked()
> by ensuring we hold the rq lock.
> Add a deprecation warning to scx_bpf_cpu_rq_locked() that mentions the
> two alternatives.
>
> This also simplifies scx code from:
>
> rq = scx_bpf_cpu_rq(cpu);
> if (!rq)
> return;
> p = rq->curr
> if (!p)
> return;
> /* ... Do something with p */
>
> into:
>
> p = scx_bpf_task_acquire_remote_curr(cpu);
> if (!p)
> return;
> /* ... Do something with p */
> bpf_task_release(p);
Why do that mandatory refcount dance, rather than directly exposing the
RCU-ness of that pointer? IIRC BPF was good with RCU.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists