From: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, David Vernet <void@manifault.com>,
Changwoo Min <changwoo@igalia.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/4] sched_ext: idle: Validate locking correctness in scx_bpf_select_cpu_and()
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 21:11:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250515191716.327518-3-arighi@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250515191716.327518-1-arighi@nvidia.com>
Validate locking correctness when accessing p->nr_cpus_allowed and
p->cpus_ptr inside scx_bpf_select_cpu_and(): if the rq lock is held,
access is safe; otherwise, require that p->pi_lock is held.
This allows to catch potential unsafe calls to scx_bpf_select_cpu_and().
Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
---
kernel/sched/ext_idle.c | 10 ++++++++++
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/ext_idle.c b/kernel/sched/ext_idle.c
index f0ebf8b5b908e..716863f1f8cee 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/ext_idle.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/ext_idle.c
@@ -935,6 +935,7 @@ __bpf_kfunc s32 scx_bpf_select_cpu_dfl(struct task_struct *p, s32 prev_cpu,
__bpf_kfunc s32 scx_bpf_select_cpu_and(struct task_struct *p, s32 prev_cpu, u64 wake_flags,
const struct cpumask *cpus_allowed, u64 flags)
{
+ struct rq *rq;
s32 cpu;
if (!kf_cpu_valid(prev_cpu, NULL))
@@ -946,6 +947,15 @@ __bpf_kfunc s32 scx_bpf_select_cpu_and(struct task_struct *p, s32 prev_cpu, u64
if (!scx_kf_allowed(SCX_KF_SELECT_CPU | SCX_KF_ENQUEUE))
return -EPERM;
+ /*
+ * Validate locking correctness to access p->cpus_ptr and
+ * p->nr_cpus_allowed: if we're holding an rq lock, we're safe;
+ * otherwise, assert that p->pi_lock is held.
+ */
+ rq = scx_locked_rq();
+ if (!rq)
+ lockdep_assert_held(&p->pi_lock);
+
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
/*
* This may also be called from ops.enqueue(), so we need to handle
--
2.49.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-05-15 19:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-05-15 19:11 [PATCHSET v2 sched_ext/for-6.16] sched_ext: Extend usability of scx_bpf_select_cpu_and() Andrea Righi
2025-05-15 19:11 ` [PATCH 1/4] sched_ext: Make scx_kf_allowed_if_unlocked() available outside ext.c Andrea Righi
2025-05-15 19:11 ` Andrea Righi [this message]
2025-05-15 19:11 ` [PATCH 3/4] sched_ext: idle: Allow scx_bpf_select_cpu_and() from unlocked context Andrea Righi
2025-05-17 17:54 ` David Vernet
2025-05-17 22:50 ` Andrea Righi
2025-05-18 0:40 ` David Vernet
2025-05-18 5:52 ` Andrea Righi
2025-05-18 13:49 ` David Vernet
2025-05-15 19:11 ` [PATCH 4/4] selftests/sched_ext: Add test for scx_bpf_select_cpu_and() via test_run Andrea Righi
2025-05-19 18:02 ` [PATCHSET v2 sched_ext/for-6.16] sched_ext: Extend usability of scx_bpf_select_cpu_and() Tejun Heo
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=20250515191716.327518-3-arighi@nvidia.com \
--to=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=changwoo@igalia.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=void@manifault.com \
/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.