Re: [RFC 1/5] ns: Introduce CPU Namespace

Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-09T22:38:02Z

On Sat, Oct 09, 2021 at 08:42:39PM +0530, Pratik R. Sampat wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 2d9ff40f4661..0413175e6d73 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -27,6 +27,8 @@
> #include "pelt.h"
> #include "smp.h"
>
> +#include <linux/cpu_namespace.h>
> +
> /*
> * Export tracepoints that act as a bare tracehook (ie: have no trace event
> * associated with them) to allow external modules to probe them.
> @@ -7559,6 +7561,7 @@ long sched_setaffinity(pid_t pid, const struct cpumask *in_mask)
> {
> cpumask_var_t cpus_allowed, new_mask;
> struct task_struct *p;
> + cpumask_t temp;
> int retval;
>
> rcu_read_lock();

You're not supposed to put a cpumask_t on stack. Those things can be
huge.

> @@ -7682,8 +7686,9 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(sched_setaffinity, pid_t, pid, unsigned int, len,
> long sched_getaffinity(pid_t pid, struct cpumask *mask)
> {
> struct task_struct *p;
> + cpumask_var_t temp;
> unsigned long flags;
> - int retval;
> + int retval, cpu;
>
> rcu_read_lock();
>
> @@ -7698,6 +7703,13 @@ long sched_getaffinity(pid_t pid, struct cpumask *mask)
>
> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&p->pi_lock, flags);
> cpumask_and(mask, &p->cpus_mask, cpu_active_mask);
> + cpumask_clear(temp);

There's a distinct lack of allocating temp before use. Are you sure you
actually tested this?