From: <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: tadeusz.struk@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, peterz@infradead.org
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] sched/fair: Fix fault in reweight_entity" failed to apply to 5.10-stable tree
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 08:12:57 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <164482277783170@kroah.com> (raw)
The patch below does not apply to the 5.10-stable tree.
If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm
tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit
id to <stable@vger.kernel.org>.
thanks,
greg k-h
------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
From 13765de8148f71fa795e0a6607de37c49ea5915a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2022 08:18:46 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] sched/fair: Fix fault in reweight_entity
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Syzbot found a GPF in reweight_entity. This has been bisected to
commit 4ef0c5c6b5ba ("kernel/sched: Fix sched_fork() access an invalid
sched_task_group")
There is a race between sched_post_fork() and setpriority(PRIO_PGRP)
within a thread group that causes a null-ptr-deref in
reweight_entity() in CFS. The scenario is that the main process spawns
number of new threads, which then call setpriority(PRIO_PGRP, 0, -20),
wait, and exit. For each of the new threads the copy_process() gets
invoked, which adds the new task_struct and calls sched_post_fork()
for it.
In the above scenario there is a possibility that
setpriority(PRIO_PGRP) and set_one_prio() will be called for a thread
in the group that is just being created by copy_process(), and for
which the sched_post_fork() has not been executed yet. This will
trigger a null pointer dereference in reweight_entity(), as it will
try to access the run queue pointer, which hasn't been set.
Before the mentioned change the cfs_rq pointer for the task has been
set in sched_fork(), which is called much earlier in copy_process(),
before the new task is added to the thread_group. Now it is done in
the sched_post_fork(), which is called after that. To fix the issue
the remove the update_load param from the update_load param() function
and call reweight_task() only if the task flag doesn't have the
TASK_NEW flag set.
Fixes: 4ef0c5c6b5ba ("kernel/sched: Fix sched_fork() access an invalid sched_task_group")
Reported-by: syzbot+af7a719bc92395ee41b3@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Signed-off-by: Tadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220203161846.1160750-1-tadeusz.struk@linaro.org
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 848eaa0efe0e..fcf0c180617c 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -1214,8 +1214,9 @@ int tg_nop(struct task_group *tg, void *data)
}
#endif
-static void set_load_weight(struct task_struct *p, bool update_load)
+static void set_load_weight(struct task_struct *p)
{
+ bool update_load = !(READ_ONCE(p->__state) & TASK_NEW);
int prio = p->static_prio - MAX_RT_PRIO;
struct load_weight *load = &p->se.load;
@@ -4406,7 +4407,7 @@ int sched_fork(unsigned long clone_flags, struct task_struct *p)
p->static_prio = NICE_TO_PRIO(0);
p->prio = p->normal_prio = p->static_prio;
- set_load_weight(p, false);
+ set_load_weight(p);
/*
* We don't need the reset flag anymore after the fork. It has
@@ -6921,7 +6922,7 @@ void set_user_nice(struct task_struct *p, long nice)
put_prev_task(rq, p);
p->static_prio = NICE_TO_PRIO(nice);
- set_load_weight(p, true);
+ set_load_weight(p);
old_prio = p->prio;
p->prio = effective_prio(p);
@@ -7212,7 +7213,7 @@ static void __setscheduler_params(struct task_struct *p,
*/
p->rt_priority = attr->sched_priority;
p->normal_prio = normal_prio(p);
- set_load_weight(p, true);
+ set_load_weight(p);
}
/*
@@ -9445,7 +9446,7 @@ void __init sched_init(void)
#endif
}
- set_load_weight(&init_task, false);
+ set_load_weight(&init_task);
/*
* The boot idle thread does lazy MMU switching as well:
reply other threads:[~2022-02-14 7:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
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=164482277783170@kroah.com \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tadeusz.struk@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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.