[PATCH 3.12 38/84] sched/core: Fix an SMP ordering race in try_to_wake_up() vs. schedule()
From: Jiri Slaby
Date: Mon Oct 17 2016 - 04:12:58 EST
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
3.12-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
===============
commit ecf7d01c229d11a44609c0067889372c91fb4f36 upstream.
Oleg noticed that its possible to falsely observe p->on_cpu == 0 such
that we'll prematurely continue with the wakeup and effectively run p on
two CPUs at the same time.
Even though the overlap is very limited; the task is in the middle of
being scheduled out; it could still result in corruption of the
scheduler data structures.
CPU0 CPU1
set_current_state(...)
<preempt_schedule>
context_switch(X, Y)
prepare_lock_switch(Y)
Y->on_cpu = 1;
finish_lock_switch(X)
store_release(X->on_cpu, 0);
try_to_wake_up(X)
LOCK(p->pi_lock);
t = X->on_cpu; // 0
context_switch(Y, X)
prepare_lock_switch(X)
X->on_cpu = 1;
finish_lock_switch(Y)
store_release(Y->on_cpu, 0);
</preempt_schedule>
schedule();
deactivate_task(X);
X->on_rq = 0;
if (X->on_rq) // false
if (t) while (X->on_cpu)
cpu_relax();
context_switch(X, ..)
finish_lock_switch(X)
store_release(X->on_cpu, 0);
Avoid the load of X->on_cpu being hoisted over the X->on_rq load.
Reported-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@xxxxxx>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@xxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@xxxxxxx>
---
kernel/sched/core.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index d756a687dc11..fe080adbe5a8 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -1530,6 +1530,25 @@ try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state, int wake_flags)
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
/*
+ * Ensure we load p->on_cpu _after_ p->on_rq, otherwise it would be
+ * possible to, falsely, observe p->on_cpu == 0.
+ *
+ * One must be running (->on_cpu == 1) in order to remove oneself
+ * from the runqueue.
+ *
+ * [S] ->on_cpu = 1; [L] ->on_rq
+ * UNLOCK rq->lock
+ * RMB
+ * LOCK rq->lock
+ * [S] ->on_rq = 0; [L] ->on_cpu
+ *
+ * Pairs with the full barrier implied in the UNLOCK+LOCK on rq->lock
+ * from the consecutive calls to schedule(); the first switching to our
+ * task, the second putting it to sleep.
+ */
+ smp_rmb();
+
+ /*
* If the owning (remote) cpu is still in the middle of schedule() with
* this task as prev, wait until its done referencing the task.
*/
--
2.10.1