Re: [PATCH v3] sched/numa: fix unsafe get_task_struct() in task_numa_assign()

[Kirill Tkhai]

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.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/