Re: [PATCH sched_ext/for-6.18] sched_ext: Acquire task reference in scx_bpf_cpu_curr()

[Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@arm.com>]

On 9/18/25 17:06, Andrea Righi wrote:
> Hi Christian,
> 
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 04:48:14PM +0100, Christian Loehle wrote:
>> On 9/9/25 21:45, Andrea Righi wrote:
>>> Hi Tejun,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 09, 2025 at 10:01:16AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>>> Hello, Andrea.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 09, 2025 at 09:57:09PM +0200, Andrea Righi wrote:
>>>>> scx_bpf_cpu_curr() has been introduced to retrieve the current task of a
>>>>> given runqueue, allowing schedulers to interact with that task.
>>>>>
>>>>> The kfunc assumes that it is always called in an RCU context, but this
>>>>> is not always guaranteed and some BPF schedulers can trigger the
>>>>> following warning:
>>>>>
>>>>>   WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
>>>>>   sched_ext: BPF scheduler "cosmos_1.0.2_gd0e71ca_x86_64_unknown_linux_gnu_debug" enabled
>>>>>   6.17.0-rc1 #1-NixOS Not tainted
>>>>>   -----------------------------
>>>>>   kernel/sched/ext.c:6415 suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage!
>>>>>
>>>>> The correct behavior is to acquire a reference to the returned task, so
>>>>> the scheduler can safely access it and then release it with
>>>>> bpf_task_release().
>>>>>
>>>>> Update the kfunc and the corresponding compatibility helper to implement
>>>>> reference acquisition and prevent potential RCU warnings.
>>>>
>>>> I think KF_RCU likely fits better for peeking kernel data structures than
>>>> having to acquire/release them. Can you post the full backtrace? Is it being
>>>> called from a sleepable bpf prog? Or is it that we just need to expand the
>>>> rcu check scope to cover regular rcu, bh and sched? And, everything aside,
>>>> if KF_RCU, should we be tripping on rcu_dereference() in the first place?
>>>
>>> For the records, as discussed offline, we should be fine marking the kfunc
>>> as KF_RCU_PROTECTED instead of acquiring the reference to the task.
>>>
>>> Right now the kfunc is marked as KF_RCU, which is not really necessary,
>>> because KF_RCU ensures the kfunc *arguments* are either RCU-protected or
>>> trusted.
>>>
>>> KF_RCU_PROTECTED, instead, should ensure that the kfunc is called inside an
>>> RCU read-side critical section, that is what we need.
>>>
>>> In this way the kfunc can safely return a pointer to the task and sleepable
>>> BPF programs can wrap the call in a bpf_rcu_read_lock/unlock() section.
>>> This should prevent the RCU warning while still letting schedulers safely
>>> use the returned task.
>>>
>>> I'll send a new patch with a proper fix.
>>>
>> Hi Andrea,
>> is this patch still outstanding or am I out of the loop now?
> 
> I have a fix in my tree:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arighi/linux.git/commit/?h=scx-6.18&id=225dccfba74877ba7c74971801f8d8f47d124373
> 
> But it also requires this fix for BPF as well:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250917032755.4068726-1-memxor@gmail.com/

Ah I missed that, thanks for the hint!

> 
> I was waiting for the BPF fix to land in bpf-next, then I was planning to
> send the fix for the scx_bpf_cpu_curr() kfunc (I'll add you in cc).
> 
> -Andrea