[Devel] Re: [RFC] cpuset update_cgroup_cpus_allowed

[David Rientjes]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Paul Jackson wrote:

> --- 2.6.23-mm1.orig/kernel/cpuset.c	2007-10-14 22:24:56.268309633 -0700
> +++ 2.6.23-mm1/kernel/cpuset.c	2007-10-14 22:34:52.645364388 -0700
> @@ -677,6 +677,64 @@ done:
>  }
>  
>  /*
> + * update_cgroup_cpus_allowed(cont, cpus)
> + *
> + * Keep looping over the tasks in cgroup 'cont', up to 'ntasks'
> + * tasks at a time, setting each task->cpus_allowed to 'cpus',
> + * until all tasks in the cgroup have that cpus_allowed setting.
> + *
> + * The 'set_cpus_allowed()' call cannot be made while holding the
> + * css_set_lock lock embedded in the cgroup_iter_* calls, so we stash
> + * some task pointers, in the tasks[] array on the stack, then drop
> + * that lock (cgroup_iter_end) before looping over the stashed tasks
> + * to update their cpus_allowed fields.
> + *
> + * Making the const 'ntasks' larger would use more stack space (bad),
> + * and reduce the number of cgroup_iter_start/cgroup_iter_end calls
> + * (good).  But perhaps more importantly, it could allow any bugs
> + * lurking in the 'need_repeat' looping logic to remain hidden longer.
> + * So keep ntasks rather small, to ensure any bugs in this loop logic
> + * are exposed quickly.
> + */
> +static void update_cgroup_cpus_allowed(struct cgroup *cont, cpumask_t *cpus)
> +{
> +	int need_repeat = true;
> +
> +	while (need_repeat) {
> +		struct cgroup_iter it;
> +		const int ntasks = 10;
> +		struct task_struct *tasks[ntasks];
> +		struct task_struct **p, **q;
> +
> +		need_repeat = false;
> +		p = tasks;
> +
> +		cgroup_iter_start(cont, &it);
> +		while (1) {
> +			struct task_struct *t;
> +
> +			t = cgroup_iter_next(cont, &it);
> +			if (!t)
> +				break;
> +			if (cpus_equal(*cpus, t->cpus_allowed))
> +				continue;

By making this cpus_equal() and not cpus_intersects(), you're trying to 
make sure that t->cpus_allowed is always equal to *cpus for each task in 
the iterator.

> +			if (p == tasks + ntasks) {
> +				need_repeat = true;
> +				break;
> +			}
> +			get_task_struct(t);
> +			*p++ = t;
> +		}
> +		cgroup_iter_end(cont, &it);
> +
> +		for (q = tasks; q < p; q++) {
> +			set_cpus_allowed(*q, *cpus);
> +			put_task_struct(*q);
> +		}
> +	}
> +}

Yet by not doing any locking here to prevent a cpu from being 
hot-unplugged, you can race and allow the hot-unplug event to happen 
before calling set_cpus_allowed().  That makes this entire function a 
no-op with set_cpus_allowed() returning -EINVAL for every call, which 
isn't caught, and no error is reported to userspace.

Now all the tasks in the cpuset have an inconsistent state with respect to 
their p->cpuset->cpus_allowed, because that was already updated in 
update_cpumask().  When userspace checks that value via the 'cpus' file, 
this is the value returned which is actually not true at all for any of 
the tasks in 'tasks'.

		David
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers