From: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 11/21] sched: Split the guts of sched_setaffinity() into a helper function
Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 17:41:01 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210521164101.lwq5wr4mbb32co6l@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210518094725.7701-12-will@kernel.org>
On 05/18/21 10:47, Will Deacon wrote:
> In preparation for replaying user affinity requests using a saved mask,
> split sched_setaffinity() up so that the initial task lookup and
> security checks are only performed when the request is coming directly
> from userspace.
>
> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> ---
> kernel/sched/core.c | 110 +++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> 1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 9512623d5a60..808bbe669a6d 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -6788,9 +6788,61 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(sched_getattr, pid_t, pid, struct sched_attr __user *, uattr,
> return retval;
> }
>
> -long sched_setaffinity(pid_t pid, const struct cpumask *in_mask)
> +static int
> +__sched_setaffinity(struct task_struct *p, const struct cpumask *mask)
> {
> + int retval;
> cpumask_var_t cpus_allowed, new_mask;
> +
> + if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&cpus_allowed, GFP_KERNEL))
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&new_mask, GFP_KERNEL))
> + return -ENOMEM;
Shouldn't we free cpus_allowed first?
Cheers
--
Qais Yousef
> +
> + cpuset_cpus_allowed(p, cpus_allowed);
> + cpumask_and(new_mask, mask, cpus_allowed);
> +
> + /*
> + * Since bandwidth control happens on root_domain basis,
> + * if admission test is enabled, we only admit -deadline
> + * tasks allowed to run on all the CPUs in the task's
> + * root_domain.
> + */
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> + if (task_has_dl_policy(p) && dl_bandwidth_enabled()) {
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + if (!cpumask_subset(task_rq(p)->rd->span, new_mask)) {
> + retval = -EBUSY;
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> + goto out_free_masks;
> + }
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> + }
> +#endif
> +again:
> + retval = __set_cpus_allowed_ptr(p, new_mask, SCA_CHECK);
> + if (retval)
> + goto out_free_masks;
> +
> + cpuset_cpus_allowed(p, cpus_allowed);
> + if (!cpumask_subset(new_mask, cpus_allowed)) {
> + /*
> + * We must have raced with a concurrent cpuset update.
> + * Just reset the cpumask to the cpuset's cpus_allowed.
> + */
> + cpumask_copy(new_mask, cpus_allowed);
> + goto again;
> + }
> +
> +out_free_masks:
> + free_cpumask_var(new_mask);
> + free_cpumask_var(cpus_allowed);
> + return retval;
> +}
> +
> +long sched_setaffinity(pid_t pid, const struct cpumask *in_mask)
> +{
> struct task_struct *p;
> int retval;
>
> @@ -6810,68 +6862,22 @@ long sched_setaffinity(pid_t pid, const struct cpumask *in_mask)
> retval = -EINVAL;
> goto out_put_task;
> }
> - if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&cpus_allowed, GFP_KERNEL)) {
> - retval = -ENOMEM;
> - goto out_put_task;
> - }
> - if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&new_mask, GFP_KERNEL)) {
> - retval = -ENOMEM;
> - goto out_free_cpus_allowed;
> - }
> - retval = -EPERM;
> +
> if (!check_same_owner(p)) {
> rcu_read_lock();
> if (!ns_capable(__task_cred(p)->user_ns, CAP_SYS_NICE)) {
> rcu_read_unlock();
> - goto out_free_new_mask;
> + retval = -EPERM;
> + goto out_put_task;
> }
> rcu_read_unlock();
> }
>
> retval = security_task_setscheduler(p);
> if (retval)
> - goto out_free_new_mask;
> -
> -
> - cpuset_cpus_allowed(p, cpus_allowed);
> - cpumask_and(new_mask, in_mask, cpus_allowed);
> -
> - /*
> - * Since bandwidth control happens on root_domain basis,
> - * if admission test is enabled, we only admit -deadline
> - * tasks allowed to run on all the CPUs in the task's
> - * root_domain.
> - */
> -#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> - if (task_has_dl_policy(p) && dl_bandwidth_enabled()) {
> - rcu_read_lock();
> - if (!cpumask_subset(task_rq(p)->rd->span, new_mask)) {
> - retval = -EBUSY;
> - rcu_read_unlock();
> - goto out_free_new_mask;
> - }
> - rcu_read_unlock();
> - }
> -#endif
> -again:
> - retval = __set_cpus_allowed_ptr(p, new_mask, SCA_CHECK);
> + goto out_put_task;
>
> - if (!retval) {
> - cpuset_cpus_allowed(p, cpus_allowed);
> - if (!cpumask_subset(new_mask, cpus_allowed)) {
> - /*
> - * We must have raced with a concurrent cpuset
> - * update. Just reset the cpus_allowed to the
> - * cpuset's cpus_allowed
> - */
> - cpumask_copy(new_mask, cpus_allowed);
> - goto again;
> - }
> - }
> -out_free_new_mask:
> - free_cpumask_var(new_mask);
> -out_free_cpus_allowed:
> - free_cpumask_var(cpus_allowed);
> + retval = __sched_setaffinity(p, in_mask);
> out_put_task:
> put_task_struct(p);
> return retval;
> --
> 2.31.1.751.gd2f1c929bd-goog
>
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-21 16:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 83+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-18 9:47 [PATCH v6 00/21] Add support for 32-bit tasks on asymmetric AArch32 systems Will Deacon
2021-05-18 9:47 ` [PATCH v6 01/21] arm64: cpuinfo: Split AArch32 registers out into a separate struct Will Deacon
2021-05-21 10:47 ` Catalin Marinas
2021-05-18 9:47 ` [PATCH v6 02/21] arm64: Allow mismatched 32-bit EL0 support Will Deacon
2021-05-21 10:25 ` Catalin Marinas
2021-05-24 12:05 ` Will Deacon
2021-05-24 13:49 ` Catalin Marinas
2021-05-21 10:41 ` Catalin Marinas
2021-05-24 12:09 ` Will Deacon
2021-05-24 13:46 ` Catalin Marinas
2021-05-21 15:22 ` Qais Yousef
2021-05-24 20:21 ` Will Deacon
2021-05-18 9:47 ` [PATCH v6 03/21] KVM: arm64: Kill 32-bit vCPUs on systems with mismatched " Will Deacon
2021-05-21 10:47 ` Catalin Marinas
2021-05-18 9:47 ` [PATCH v6 04/21] arm64: Kill 32-bit applications scheduled on 64-bit-only CPUs Will Deacon
2021-05-21 10:55 ` Catalin Marinas
2021-05-18 9:47 ` [PATCH v6 05/21] arm64: Advertise CPUs capable of running 32-bit applications in sysfs Will Deacon
2021-05-21 11:00 ` Catalin Marinas
2021-05-18 9:47 ` [PATCH v6 06/21] sched: Introduce task_cpu_possible_mask() to limit fallback rq selection Will Deacon
2021-05-21 16:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-05-24 12:17 ` Will Deacon
2021-05-18 9:47 ` [PATCH v6 07/21] cpuset: Don't use the cpu_possible_mask as a last resort for cgroup v1 Will Deacon
2021-05-21 17:39 ` Qais Yousef
2021-05-24 20:21 ` Will Deacon
2021-05-18 9:47 ` [PATCH v6 08/21] cpuset: Honour task_cpu_possible_mask() in guarantee_online_cpus() Will Deacon
2021-05-21 16:25 ` Qais Yousef
2021-05-24 21:09 ` Will Deacon
2021-05-18 9:47 ` [PATCH v6 09/21] sched: Reject CPU affinity changes based on task_cpu_possible_mask() Will Deacon
2021-05-18 9:47 ` [PATCH v6 10/21] sched: Introduce task_struct::user_cpus_ptr to track requested affinity Will Deacon
2021-05-18 9:47 ` [PATCH v6 11/21] sched: Split the guts of sched_setaffinity() into a helper function Will Deacon
2021-05-21 16:41 ` Qais Yousef [this message]
2021-05-24 21:16 ` Will Deacon
2021-05-18 9:47 ` [PATCH v6 12/21] sched: Allow task CPU affinity to be restricted on asymmetric systems Will Deacon
2021-05-21 17:11 ` Qais Yousef
2021-05-24 21:43 ` Will Deacon
2021-05-18 9:47 ` [PATCH v6 13/21] sched: Admit forcefully-affined tasks into SCHED_DEADLINE Will Deacon
2021-05-18 10:20 ` Quentin Perret
2021-05-18 10:28 ` Will Deacon
2021-05-18 10:48 ` Quentin Perret
2021-05-18 10:59 ` Will Deacon
2021-05-18 13:19 ` Quentin Perret
2021-05-20 9:13 ` Juri Lelli
2021-05-20 10:16 ` Will Deacon
2021-05-20 10:33 ` Quentin Perret
2021-05-20 12:38 ` Juri Lelli
2021-05-20 12:38 ` Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
2021-05-20 15:06 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-05-20 16:00 ` Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
2021-05-20 17:55 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-05-20 18:03 ` Will Deacon
2021-05-21 11:26 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-05-20 18:01 ` Will Deacon
2021-05-21 5:25 ` Juri Lelli
2021-05-21 8:15 ` Quentin Perret
2021-05-21 8:39 ` Juri Lelli
2021-05-21 10:37 ` Will Deacon
2021-05-21 11:23 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-05-21 13:02 ` Quentin Perret
2021-05-21 14:04 ` Juri Lelli
2021-05-21 17:47 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-05-21 13:00 ` Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
2021-05-21 13:12 ` Quentin Perret
2021-05-24 20:47 ` Will Deacon
2021-05-18 9:47 ` [PATCH v6 14/21] freezer: Add frozen_or_skipped() helper function Will Deacon
2021-05-18 9:47 ` [PATCH v6 15/21] sched: Defer wakeup in ttwu() for unschedulable frozen tasks Will Deacon
2021-05-18 9:47 ` [PATCH v6 16/21] arm64: Implement task_cpu_possible_mask() Will Deacon
2021-05-24 14:57 ` Catalin Marinas
2021-05-18 9:47 ` [PATCH v6 17/21] arm64: exec: Adjust affinity for compat tasks with mismatched 32-bit EL0 Will Deacon
2021-05-24 15:02 ` Catalin Marinas
2021-05-18 9:47 ` [PATCH v6 18/21] arm64: Prevent offlining first CPU with 32-bit EL0 on mismatched system Will Deacon
2021-05-24 15:46 ` Catalin Marinas
2021-05-24 20:32 ` Will Deacon
2021-05-25 9:43 ` Catalin Marinas
2021-05-18 9:47 ` [PATCH v6 19/21] arm64: Hook up cmdline parameter to allow mismatched 32-bit EL0 Will Deacon
2021-05-24 15:47 ` Catalin Marinas
2021-05-18 9:47 ` [PATCH v6 20/21] arm64: Remove logic to kill 32-bit tasks on 64-bit-only cores Will Deacon
2021-05-24 15:47 ` Catalin Marinas
2021-05-18 9:47 ` [PATCH v6 21/21] Documentation: arm64: describe asymmetric 32-bit support Will Deacon
2021-05-21 17:37 ` Qais Yousef
2021-05-24 21:46 ` Will Deacon
2021-05-24 16:22 ` Catalin Marinas
2021-05-21 17:45 ` [PATCH v6 00/21] Add support for 32-bit tasks on asymmetric AArch32 systems Qais Yousef
2021-05-24 22:08 ` Will Deacon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210521164101.lwq5wr4mbb32co6l@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com \
--to=qais.yousef@arm.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lizefan@huawei.com \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=qperret@google.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=surenb@google.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).