[PATCH v4 4/5] sched/fair: Use list_for_each_entry_rcu() in print_cfs_stats()

[Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@atomlin.com>]

In print_cfs_stats(), rq->leaf_cfs_rq_list is traversed using
for_each_leaf_cfs_rq_safe(), which expands to list_for_each_entry_safe().
Although rq->leaf_cfs_rq_list is RCU-protected, list_for_each_entry_safe()
is a non-RCU iteration macro. It dereferences pointer links without
READ_ONCE() and pre-fetches the next pointer.

When a writer concurrently adds a new cfs_rq to the list using
list_add_rcu(), a reader traversing with list_for_each_entry_safe()
lacks READ_ONCE() protection. Without READ_ONCE(), the compiler is free
to re-fetch pointers or reorder instructions. As a result, the reader
can observe a newly inserted cfs_rq's pointer before its internal fields
are fully visible, leading to reading uninitialised data or
dereferencing invalid pointers.

Additionally, because print_cfs_rq() drops rq->lock during seq_file I/O,
concurrent cfs_rq list removals and re-insertions can modify
cfs_rq->next. If cfs_rq is re-inserted near the head of the list while
rq->lock is dropped, lockless readers can jump backward in the list.
Under sufficient load it could lead to unbounded list traversal inside
the RCU read-side critical section and trigger an RCU stall.

Fix this by introducing for_each_leaf_cfs_rq_rcu(), which expands to
list_for_each_entry_rcu(). This uses READ_ONCE() during list traversal.
Finally, capping print_cfs_stats() lockless list traversal with a hard
iteration ceiling to guarantee loop termination and prevent RCU stalls
under continuous list churn.

Fixes: 0601267ca673 ("sched/fair: Rewrite list_add_leaf_cfs_rq()")
Reported-by: sashiko-bot <sashiko-bot@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@atomlin.com>
---
 kernel/sched/fair.c | 17 +++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index d78467ec6ee1..eb03323332b0 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -412,6 +412,10 @@ static inline void assert_list_leaf_cfs_rq(struct rq *rq)
 	list_for_each_entry_safe(cfs_rq, pos, &rq->leaf_cfs_rq_list,	\
 				 leaf_cfs_rq_list)
 
+#define for_each_leaf_cfs_rq_rcu(rq, cfs_rq)				\
+	list_for_each_entry_rcu(cfs_rq, &(rq)->leaf_cfs_rq_list,	\
+				leaf_cfs_rq_list)
+
 /* Do the two (enqueued) entities belong to the same group ? */
 static inline struct cfs_rq *
 is_same_group(struct sched_entity *se, struct sched_entity *pse)
@@ -497,6 +501,9 @@ static inline void assert_list_leaf_cfs_rq(struct rq *rq)
 #define for_each_leaf_cfs_rq_safe(rq, cfs_rq, pos)	\
 		for (cfs_rq = &rq->cfs, pos = NULL; cfs_rq; cfs_rq = pos)
 
+#define for_each_leaf_cfs_rq_rcu(rq, cfs_rq)	\
+		for (cfs_rq = &rq->cfs; cfs_rq; cfs_rq = NULL)
+
 static inline struct sched_entity *parent_entity(struct sched_entity *se)
 {
 	return NULL;
@@ -15399,13 +15406,19 @@ DEFINE_SCHED_CLASS(fair) = {
 #endif
 };
 
+#define SCHED_DEBUG_MAX_ITER 1024
+
 void print_cfs_stats(struct seq_file *m, int cpu)
 {
-	struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, *pos;
+	struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq;
+	int max_iter = SCHED_DEBUG_MAX_ITER;
 
 	rcu_read_lock();
-	for_each_leaf_cfs_rq_safe(cpu_rq(cpu), cfs_rq, pos)
+	for_each_leaf_cfs_rq_rcu(cpu_rq(cpu), cfs_rq) {
+		if (--max_iter < 0)
+			break;
 		print_cfs_rq(m, cpu, cfs_rq);
+	}
 	rcu_read_unlock();
 }
 
-- 
2.55.0