Re: [resend RFC 0/3] core scheduling: add PR_SCHED_CORE_SHARE

[Joel Fernandes]

+Josh Don  Who was involved with upstream development of the interface.

On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 5:53 AM Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hey everyone,
>
> This adds the new PR_CORE_SCHED prctl() command PR_SCHED_CORE_SHARE to
> allow a third process to pull a core scheduling domain from one task and
> push it to another task.
>
> The core scheduling uapi is exposed via the PR_SCHED_CORE option of the
> prctl() system call. Two commands can be used to alter the core
> scheduling domain of a task:
>
> 1. PR_SCHED_CORE_SHARE_TO
>    This command takes the cookie for the caller's core scheduling domain
>    and applies it to a target task identified by passing a pid.
>
> 2. PR_SCHED_CORE_SHARE_FROM
>    This command takes the cookie for a task's core scheduling domain and
>    applies it to the calling task.
>
> While these options cover nearly all use-cases they are rather
> inconvient for some common use-cases. A vm/container manager often
> supervises a large number of vms/containers:
>
>                                vm/container manager
>
> vm-supervisor-1    container-supervisor-1    vm-supervisor-2    container-supervisor-2
>
> Where none of the vms/container are its immediate children.
>
> For container managers each container often has a separate supervising
> process and the workload is the parent of the container. In the example
> below the supervising process is "[lxc monitor]" and the workload is
> "/sbin/init" and all descendant processes:
>
> ├─[lxc monitor] /var/lib/lxd/containers imp1
> │   └─systemd
> │       ├─agetty -o -p -- \\u --noclear --keep-baud console 115200,38400,9600 linux
> │       ├─cron -f -P
> │       ├─dbus-daemon --system --address=systemd: --nofork --nopidfile --systemd-activation --syslog-only
> │       ├─networkd-dispat /usr/bin/networkd-dispatcher --run-startup-triggers
> │       ├─rsyslogd -n -iNONE
> │       │   ├─{rsyslogd}
> │       │   └─{rsyslogd}
> │       ├─systemd-journal
> │       ├─systemd-logind
> │       ├─systemd-network
> │       ├─systemd-resolve
> │       └─systemd-udevd
>
> Similiar in spirit but different in layout a vm often has a supervising
> process and multiple threads for each vcpu:
>
> ├─qemu-system-x86 -S -name f2-vm [...]
> │   ├─{qemu-system-x86}
> │   ├─{qemu-system-x86}
> │   ├─{qemu-system-x86}
> │   ├─{qemu-system-x86}
> │   ├─{qemu-system-x86}
> │   ├─{qemu-system-x86}
> │   ├─{qemu-system-x86}
> │   ├─{qemu-system-x86}
> │   ├─{qemu-system-x86}
> │   ├─{qemu-system-x86}
> │   └─{qemu-system-x86}
>
> So ultimately an approximation of that layout would be:
>
>                                vm/container manager
>
> vm-supervisor-1    container-supervisor-1    vm-supervisor-2    container-supervisor-2
>        |                      |                    |                      |
>      vcpus                 workload              vcpus                 workload
>                           (/sbin/init)                               (/sbin/init)
>
> For containers a new core scheduling domain is allocated for the init
> process. Any descendant processes and threads init spawns will
> automatically inherit the correct core scheduling domain.
>
> For vms a new core scheduling domain is allocated and each vcpu thread
> will be made to join the new core scheduling domain.
>
> Whenever the tool or library that we use to run containers or vms
> exposes an option to automatically create a new core scheduling domain
> we will make use of it. However that is not always the case. In such
> cases the vm/container manager will need to allocate and set the core
> scheduling domain for the relevant processes or threads.
>
> Neither the vm/container mananger nor the indivial vm/container
> supervisors are supposed to run in any or the same core scheduling
> domain as the respective vcpus/workloads.
>
> So in order to create to create a new core scheduling domain we need to
> fork() off a new helper process which allocates a core scheduling domain
> and then pushes the cookie for the core scheduling domain to the
> relevant vcpus/workloads.
>
> This works but things get rather tricky, especially for containers, when
> a new process is supposed to be spawned into a running container.
> An important step in creating a new process inside a running container
> involves:
>
> - getting a handle on the container's init process (pid or nowadays
>   often a pidfd)
> - getting a handle on the container's namespaces (namespace file
>   descriptors reachable via /proc/<init-pid>/ns/<ns-typ> or nowadays
>   often a pidfd)
> - calling setns() either on each namespace file descriptor individually
>   or on the pidfd of the init process
>
> An important sub-step here is to attach to the container's pid namespace
> via setns(). After attaching to the container's pid namespace any
> process created via a fork()-like system calls will be a full member of
> the container's pid namespace.
>
> So attaching often involves two child processes. The first child simply
> attaches to the namespaces of the container including the container's
> pid namespace. The second child fork()s and ultimately exec()s thereby
> guaranteeing that the newly created process is a full member of the
> container's pid namespace:
>
> first_child = fork();
> if (first_child == 0) {
>         setns(CLONE_NEWPID);
>
>         second_child = fork();
>         if (second_child == 0) {
>                 execlp();
>         }
> }
>
> As part of this we also need to make sure that the second child - the
> one ultimately exec()ing the relevant programm in an already running
> container - joins the core scheduling domain of the container. When the
> container runs in a new pid namespace this can usually be done by
> calling:
>
> first_child = fork();
> if (first_child == 0) {
>         setns(CLONE_NEWPID);
>
>         second_child = fork();
>         if (second_child == 0) {
>                 prctl(PR_SCHED_CORE, PR_SCHED_CORE_SHARE_FROM,
>                       1, PR_SCHED_CORE_SCOPE_THREAD, 0);
>
>                 execlp();
>         }
> }
>
> from the second child since we know that pid 1 in a container running
> inside of a separate pid namespace is the correct process to get the
> core scheduling domain from.
>
> However, this doesn't work when the container does not run in a separate
> pid namespace or when it shares the pid namespace with another
> container. In these scenarios we can't simply call
> PR_SCHED_CORE_SHARE_FROM from the second child since we don't know the
> correct pid number to call it on in the pid namespace.
>
> (Note it is of course possible to learn the pid of the process in the
> relevant pid namespace but it is rather complex involving three separate
> processes and an AF_UNIX domain socket over which to send a message
> including struct ucred from which to learn the relevant pid. But that
> doesn't work in all cases since it requires privileges to translate
> arbitrary pids. In any case, this is not an option for performance
> reasons alone. However, I do also have a separate patchset in [1]
> allowing translation of pids between pid namespaces which will help with
> that in the future - something which I had discussed with Joel a while
> back but haven't pushed for yet since implementing it early 2020. Both
> patches are useful independent of one another.)
>
> Additionally, we ideally always want to manage the core scheduling
> domain from the first child since the first child knows the pids for the
> relevant processes in its current pid namespace. The first child knows
> the pid of the init process in the current pid namespace from which to
> pull the core scheduling domain and it knows the pid of the second child
> it created to which to apply the core scheduling domain.
>
> The core scheduling domain of the first child needs to be unaffected as
> it might run sensitive codepaths that should not be exposed in smt attacks.
>
> The new PR_CORE_SCHED_SHARE command for the PR_SCHED_CORE prctl() option
> allows to support this and other use-cases by making it possible to pull
> the core scheduling domain from a task identified via its pid and push
> it to another task identified via its pid from a third managing task:
>
> prctl(PR_SCHED_CORE, PR_SCHED_CORE_SHARE,
>       <pid-to-which-to-apply-coresched-domain>,
>       PR_SCHED_CORE_SCOPE_{THREAD,THREAD_GROUP,PROCESS_GROUP},
>       <pid-from-which-to-take-coresched-domain>)
>
> In order to use PR_SCHED_CORE_SHARE the caller must have
> ptrace_may_access() rights to both the task from which to take the core
> scheduling domain and to the task to which to apply the core scheduling
> domain. If the caller passes zero as the 5th argument then its own core
> scheduling domain is applied to the target making the option adhere to
> regular prctl() semantics.
>
> Thanks!
> Christian
>
> Christian Brauner (3):
>   pid: introduce task_by_pid()
>   sched/prctl: add PR_SCHED_CORE_SHARE command
>   tests: add new PR_SCHED_CORE_SHARE test
>
>  arch/mips/kernel/mips-mt-fpaff.c              | 14 +-----
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c        | 19 +++-----
>  block/ioprio.c                                | 10 +----
>  include/linux/sched.h                         |  9 +++-
>  include/uapi/linux/prctl.h                    |  3 +-
>  kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c                        | 12 ++---
>  kernel/events/core.c                          |  5 +--
>  kernel/futex/syscalls.c                       | 20 +++------
>  kernel/pid.c                                  |  5 +++
>  kernel/sched/core.c                           | 27 ++++--------
>  kernel/sched/core_sched.c                     | 44 ++++++++++++++-----
>  kernel/sys.c                                  | 12 ++---
>  mm/mempolicy.c                                |  2 +-
>  tools/testing/selftests/sched/cs_prctl_test.c | 23 ++++++++++
>  14 files changed, 105 insertions(+), 100 deletions(-)
>
>
> base-commit: e783362eb54cd99b2cac8b3a9aeac942e6f6ac07
> --
> 2.32.0
>