[lkml]   [2014]   [Oct]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3] sched/numa: fix unsafe get_task_struct() in task_numa_assign()
On 22.10.2014 00:03, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> On 21.10.2014 23:03, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> On 10/21, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:50:06PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>>> Let me explain what I personally dislike in v3:
>>>> - I think that we do not have enough reasons for
>>>> SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU. This is the serious change.
>>> What exactly would the downsides be? SDBR has very limited space
>>> overhead iirc.
>> Yes, SDBR is nice (and it could probably have more users), but my
>> concern is not overhead. Please see below.
>>>> - Again, perhaps we should start we a simple and stupid fix.
>>>> We can do get_task_struct() under rq->lock or, if nothing
>>>> else, just
>>>> raw_spin_lock_irq(&rq->lock);
>>>> cur = rq->curr;
>>>> if (is_idle_task(cur) || (cur->flags & PF_EXITING))
>>>> cur = NULL;
>>>> raw_spin_unlock_irq(&rq->lock);
>>> I think I agree with you, this is the simple safe option and is
>>> something we can easily backport. After that we can add creative bits on
>>> top.
>> Agreed.
>> Kirill, could you please make a patch?
> Yeah, I'll send it tomorrow.
>>> I think I prefer the SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU thing over the probe_kernel
>>> thing
>> I won't really insist, but let me try to explain why I dislike it in
>> this particular case.
>> - It is not clear who else (except task_numa_compare) will need it.
>> And it looks at bit strange to make task_struct SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU
>> just to read a word in task_numa_compare().
>> - In some sense, the usage of SDBR looks simply "wrong" in this case.
>> IOW, I agree that probe_kernel_read() is ugly, but in this case
>> SDBR acts exactly the same way as probe_kernel_read().
>> SDBR does not make the object rcu-safe, it only protects the object
>> type plus ensures that this memory can't go away. It was designed
>> for the case when you read the stable members initialized in ctor
>> (usually a lock) and verify/lock the object.
>> But in this case we can not detect that the object is still alive
>> without the additional trick, so when you read ->sighand or ->flags,
>> the fact that this memory is still "struct task_struct" doesn't help
>> and doesn't matter at all. Only the subsequent "task == rq->curr"
>> check proves that yes, this is task_struct.
>> OTOH, (afaics) we only need probe_kernel_read() if CONFIG_DEBUG_SLAB.
>> And in fact I think that "read the valid but potentially freed kernel
>> pointer" deserves another helper, it can have more users. For example,
>> please look at get_freepointer_safe().
>> What if we add get_kernel(x, ptr) macro to factor out the IS_ENABLED()
>> of ifdef hack? Or inline function... This way the new xxx() helper we
>> discussed won't look that bad.
>> But again, I agree that this subjective, I won't really argue.
> So this patch we fix task_numa_compare(). We need remember to fix
> remaining later:
> $ git grep ACCESS_ONCE kernel/sched/ | grep "\->curr"
> kernel/sched/deadline.c: curr = ACCESS_ONCE(rq->curr); /*
> kernel/sched/fair.c: cur = ACCESS_ONCE(dst_rq->curr);
> kernel/sched/fair.c: tsk = ACCESS_ONCE(cpu_rq(cpu)->curr);
> kernel/sched/rt.c: curr = ACCESS_ONCE(rq->curr); /* unlocked

*)in other places we use task_struct R/O.

 \ /
  Last update: 2014-10-21 22:41    [W:0.059 / U:3.412 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site