Re: [PATCH] sched/deadline: Fix switched_from_dl

[Steven Rostedt]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 09:29:48 +0200
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Mark noticed that syzkaller is able to reliably trigger the following
> 
>   dl_rq->running_bw > dl_rq->this_bw
>   WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 153 at kernel/sched/deadline.c:124 switched_from_dl+0x454/0x608
>   Kernel panic - not syncing: panic_on_warn set ...
> 
>   CPU: 1 PID: 153 Comm: syz-executor253 Not tainted 4.18.0-rc3+ #29
>   Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT)
>   Call trace:
>    dump_backtrace+0x0/0x458
>    show_stack+0x20/0x30
>    dump_stack+0x180/0x250
>    panic+0x2dc/0x4ec
>    __warn_printk+0x0/0x150
>    report_bug+0x228/0x2d8
>    bug_handler+0xa0/0x1a0
>    brk_handler+0x2f0/0x568
>    do_debug_exception+0x1bc/0x5d0
>    el1_dbg+0x18/0x78
>    switched_from_dl+0x454/0x608
>    __sched_setscheduler+0x8cc/0x2018
>    sys_sched_setattr+0x340/0x758
>    el0_svc_naked+0x30/0x34
> 
> syzkaller reproducer runs a bunch of threads that constantly switch
> between DEADLINE and NORMAL classes while interacting through futexes.
> 
> The splat above is caused by the fact that if a DEADLINE task is setattr
> back to NORMAL while in non_contending state (blocked on a futex -
> inactive timer armed), its contribution to running_bw is not removed
> before sub_rq_bw() gets called (!task_on_rq_queued() branch) and the
> latter sees running_bw > this_bw.
> 
> Fix it by removing a task contribution from running_bw if the task is
> not queued and in non_contending state while switched to a different
> class.
> 
> Reported-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/deadline.c | 11 ++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> index fbfc3f1d368a..10c7b51c0d1f 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> @@ -2290,8 +2290,17 @@ static void switched_from_dl(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
>  	if (task_on_rq_queued(p) && p->dl.dl_runtime)
>  		task_non_contending(p);
>  
> -	if (!task_on_rq_queued(p))
> +	if (!task_on_rq_queued(p)) {
> +		/*
> +		 * Inactive timer is armed. However, p is leaving DEADLINE and
> +		 * might migrate away from this rq while continuing to run on
> +		 * some other class. We need to remove its contribution from
> +		 * this rq running_bw now, or sub_rq_bw (below) will complain.
> +		 */
> +		if (p->dl.dl_non_contending)
> +			sub_running_bw(&p->dl, &rq->dl);
>  		sub_rq_bw(&p->dl, &rq->dl);
> +	}
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * We cannot use inactive_task_timer() to invoke sub_running_bw()

Looking at this code:

	if (!task_on_rq_queued(p)) {
		/*
		 * Inactive timer is armed. However, p is leaving DEADLINE and
		 * might migrate away from this rq while continuing to run on
		 * some other class. We need to remove its contribution from
		 * this rq running_bw now, or sub_rq_bw (below) will complain.
		 */
		if (p->dl.dl_non_contending)
			sub_running_bw(&p->dl, &rq->dl);
		sub_rq_bw(&p->dl, &rq->dl);
	}

	/*
	 * We cannot use inactive_task_timer() to invoke sub_running_bw()
	 * at the 0-lag time, because the task could have been migrated
	 * while SCHED_OTHER in the meanwhile.
	 */
	if (p->dl.dl_non_contending)
		p->dl.dl_non_contending = 0;

Question. Is the "dl_non_contending" only able to be set
if !task_on_rq_queued(p) is true? In that case, we could just clear it
in the first if block. If it's not true, I would think the subtraction
is needed regardless.

-- Steve