From: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, aaron.lwe@gmail.com,
valentin.schneider@arm.com, mingo@kernel.org, pauld@redhat.com,
jdesfossez@digitalocean.com, naravamudan@digitalocean.com,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
juri.lelli@redhat.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com,
mgorman@suse.de, kernel-team@android.com, john.stultz@linaro.org
Subject: Re: NULL pointer dereference in pick_next_task_fair
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 17:26:32 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191106172631.euq7ggvfao2kvyld@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191106165733.GY4114@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 11/06/19 17:57, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 03:04:50PM +0000, Qais Yousef wrote:
> > On 11/06/19 14:08, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 01:05:25PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > > The only thing I'm now considering is if we shouldn't be setting
> > > > ->on_cpu=2 _before_ calling put_prev_task(). I'll go audit the RT/DL
> > > > cases.
> > >
> > > So I think it all works, but that's more by accident than anything else.
> > > I'll move the ->on_cpu=2 assignment earlier. That clearly avoids calling
> > > put_prev_task() while we're in put_prev_task().
> >
> > Did you mean avoids calling *set_next_task()* while we're in put_prev_task()?
>
> Either, really. The change pattern does put_prev_task() first, and then
> restores state by calling set_next_task(). And it can do that while
> we're in put_prev_task(), unless we're setting ->on_cpu=2.
*head starts spinning*
I can't see how we can have double put_prev_task() in a row. Let me stare more
at the code.
>
> > So what you're saying is that put_prev_task_{rt,dl}() could drop the rq_lock()
> > too and the race could happen while we're inside these functions, correct? Or
> > is it a different reason?
>
> Indeed, except it looks like that actually works (mostly by accident).
+1
I think I got it now, it's the double_lock_balance() that can drop the lock.
It even has a comment above it!
>
> > By the way, is all reads/writes to ->on_cpu happen when a lock is held? Ie: we
> > don't need to use any smp read/write barriers?
>
> Yes, ->on_cpu is fully serialized by rq->lock. We use
> smp_store_release() in finish_task() due to ttwu spin-waiting on it
> (which reminds me, riel was seeing lots of that).
Thanks. I had to ask as it was hard to walk all the paths.
Sometimes I get tempted to sprinkle comments or lockdep_assert() but then
I think that can easily get ugly and out of hand. I guess one just has to know
the code.
Cheers
--
Qais Yousef
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-06 17:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-28 17:46 NULL pointer dereference in pick_next_task_fair Quentin Perret
2019-10-28 21:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-10-29 11:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-10-29 11:50 ` Quentin Perret
2019-10-30 22:50 ` Ram Muthiah
2019-10-31 1:33 ` Valentin Schneider
2019-10-31 10:54 ` Valentin Schneider
2019-10-31 14:24 ` Valentin Schneider
2019-10-31 22:15 ` Valentin Schneider
2019-11-06 12:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-06 13:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-06 15:04 ` Qais Yousef
2019-11-06 16:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-06 17:26 ` Qais Yousef [this message]
2019-11-06 15:51 ` Kirill Tkhai
2019-11-06 16:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-06 17:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-07 8:36 ` Kirill Tkhai
2019-11-07 13:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-07 15:12 ` Kirill Tkhai
2019-11-07 15:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-07 15:53 ` Kirill Tkhai
2019-11-07 15:38 ` Quentin Perret
2019-11-07 18:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-07 19:27 ` Quentin Perret
2019-11-07 19:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-07 19:42 ` Quentin Perret
2019-11-07 19:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-08 11:02 ` Quentin Perret
2019-11-08 11:47 ` Valentin Schneider
2019-11-08 11:58 ` Quentin Perret
2019-11-08 12:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-08 12:15 ` Quentin Perret
2019-11-08 12:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-08 12:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-08 11:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-08 12:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-07 16:09 ` Qais Yousef
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=20191106172631.euq7ggvfao2kvyld@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com \
--to=qais.yousef@arm.com \
--cc=aaron.lwe@gmail.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=jdesfossez@digitalocean.com \
--cc=john.stultz@linaro.org \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=naravamudan@digitalocean.com \
--cc=pauld@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=qperret@google.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.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).