From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965030AbXCUVub (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:50:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965055AbXCUVub (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:50:31 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.24]:55043 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965030AbXCUVua (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:50:30 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:50:27 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Olaf Hering Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] reject taskset for kernel threads Message-Id: <20070321145027.c76121dc.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20070321205353.GA32529@aepfle.de> References: <20070321205353.GA32529@aepfle.de> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.7 (GTK+ 2.8.6; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 21:53:53 +0100 Olaf Hering wrote: > > Do not allow taskset for kernel threads. > These commands will cause oopses due to stack corruption: > > ls /proc/*/task | grep -v ^/ | xargs echo | xargs -n1 taskset -pc 2-9 > taskset -pc 1 $$ > taskset -pc 0 $((pidof john)) Why does the kernel oops? > Possible fix in userland: > > for i in ` ls /proc/*/task | grep -v ^/ ` > do > e=/proc/*/task/$i/exe > if test -e $e > then > taskset -pc 2-9 $i > fi > done > > > Signed-off-by: Olaf Hering > > --- > kernel/sched.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > Index: linux-2.6.20/kernel/sched.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.20.orig/kernel/sched.c > +++ linux-2.6.20/kernel/sched.c > @@ -4310,6 +4310,8 @@ long sched_setaffinity(pid_t pid, cpumas > read_unlock(&tasklist_lock); > > retval = -EPERM; > + if (!p->mm) > + goto out_unlock; > if ((current->euid != p->euid) && (current->euid != p->uid) && > !capable(CAP_SYS_NICE)) > goto out_unlock; Maybe. There are some kernel threads for which we definitely don't want the affinity altered (ksoftirqd, probably keventd..). But otoh there might be legitimate reasons to alter, say, pdflush's or kjournald's affinity, and that should be a safe thing to do. Perhaps a suitable compromise would be to disallow affinity-setting on non-singlethreaded kernel threads. But of course, we don't want that to oops.