linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH sched_ext/for-6.18] sched_ext: Use cgroup_lock/unlock() to synchronize against cgroup operations

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aLipid4JRKEac1bS@gpd4>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2025 22:48:09 +0200
From: Andrea Righi <arighi@...dia.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>, Changwoo Min <changwoo@...lia.com>,
	sched-ext@...ts.linux.dev, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH sched_ext/for-6.18] sched_ext: Use cgroup_lock/unlock()
 to synchronize against cgroup operations

On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 06:39:46AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 02:44:58PM +0200, Andrea Righi wrote:
> > >  static void scx_cgroup_lock(void)
> > >  {
> > > -	percpu_down_write(&scx_cgroup_rwsem);
> > > +	percpu_down_write(&scx_cgroup_ops_rwsem);
> > > +	cgroup_lock();
> > >  }
> > 
> > Shouldn't we acquire cgroup_lock() before scx_cgroup_ops_rwsem to avoid
> > a potential AB-BA deadlock?
> 
> There's no existing ordering between the two locks, so any order should be
> safe. The reason why I put it in this particular order is because any
> cgroup_lock() holder has no reason to grab ops_rwsem now or in the future
> while the opposite direction is still unlikely but theoretically more
> possible.

Isn't scx_group_set_weight() called with cgroup_mutex held? In this case
the order is cgroup_lock() -> scx_cgroup_ops_rwsem, or am I missing
something?

Thanks,
-Andrea