Sched_ext development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>,
	Changwoo Min <changwoo@igalia.com>,
	sched-ext@lists.linux.dev, Emil Tsalapatis <emil@etsalapatis.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] sched_ext: Track bits[] storage size in struct scx_cmask
Date: Tue, 19 May 2026 07:59:25 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <agv8PYhW2qQ1vYwT@gpd4> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aguYUvewD7bkNXbn@slm.duckdns.org>

Hi Tejun,

On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 12:53:06PM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 12:11:35AM +0200, Andrea Righi wrote:
> > > +/**
> > > + * scx_cmask_reframe - Reshape @m's active range without resizing storage
> > > + * @m: cmask to reframe
> > > + * @base: new active range base
> > > + * @nr_cids: new active range length, must fit within @m->alloc_words
> > > + *
> > > + * Body bits within the new range become garbage - only the head and tail
> > > + * words are zeroed to keep the padding invariant.
> > > + */
> > > +static inline void scx_cmask_reframe(struct scx_cmask *m, u32 base, u32 nr_cids)
> > > +{
> > > +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(SCX_CMASK_NR_WORDS(nr_cids) > m->alloc_words))
> > > +		return;
> > 
> > Considering that:
> > 
> >  #define SCX_CMASK_NR_WORDS(nr_cids)    (((nr_cids) + 63) / 64 + 1)
> > 
> > If we pass nr_cids == UINT_MAX here, we have:
> > 
> >  CMASK_NR_WORDS(UINT_MAX) = (UINT_MAX + 63)/64 + 1 = 62/64 + 1 = 1 (wraps)
> > 
> > Should we simply reject if it's greater than a certain reasonable upper bound?
> 
> I'm not sure what we do matters. No matter what, this would be a clear bug
> and an unlikely one at that. As long as the backtrace is dumped, I think
> anything is fine.

Agreed that the bug is unlikely to happen, but the WARN_ON_ONCE() wouldn't fire
at all for nr_cids == UINT_MAX.

However, IIUC scx_cmask_reframe() is internal kernel code, with no callers yet
and the upcoming consumers will probably drive nr_cids from bounded sources,
likely num_possible_cpus() and such. So, the wrap shouldn't really reachable on
the kernel side. Therefore, I guess we can simply drop the WARN_ON_ONCE().

Instead, cmask_reframe() is the mirrored version that is called from BPF, so any
loaded BPF prog can potentially pass an arbitrary u32.

How about changing the CMASK_NR_WORDS() macro as following?

 #define CMASK_NR_WORDS(nr_cids) ((u32)(((u64)(nr_cids) + 63) / 64 + 1))

In this way CMASK_NR_WORDS(UINT_MAX) returns ~67M instead of 1 and in this way
we'd get a clear scx_bpf_error() backtrace if it wraps. WDYT?

Thanks,
-Andrea

  reply	other threads:[~2026-05-19  5:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-05-17 18:36 [PATCHSET RESEND sched_ext/for-7.2] sched_ext: cmask improvements Tejun Heo
2026-05-17 18:36 ` [PATCH 1/3] sched_ext: Rename scx_cmask.nr_bits to nr_cids Tejun Heo
2026-05-17 18:43   ` sashiko-bot
2026-05-17 19:02   ` [PATCH v2 " Tejun Heo
2026-05-17 18:36 ` [PATCH 2/3] sched_ext: Track bits[] storage size in struct scx_cmask Tejun Heo
2026-05-17 19:14   ` sashiko-bot
2026-05-17 19:29   ` [PATCH v2 " Tejun Heo
2026-05-18 22:11     ` Andrea Righi
2026-05-18 22:53       ` Tejun Heo
2026-05-19  5:59         ` Andrea Righi [this message]
2026-05-17 18:36 ` [PATCH 3/3] sched_ext: Add cmask mask ops Tejun Heo
2026-05-18 23:58   ` [PATCH v2 " Tejun Heo
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2026-05-19  7:58 [PATCHSET v2 sched_ext/for-7.2] sched_ext: cmask improvements Tejun Heo
2026-05-19  7:58 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] sched_ext: Track bits[] storage size in struct scx_cmask Tejun Heo
2026-05-19  8:48   ` sashiko-bot

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=agv8PYhW2qQ1vYwT@gpd4 \
    --to=arighi@nvidia.com \
    --cc=changwoo@igalia.com \
    --cc=emil@etsalapatis.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sched-ext@lists.linux.dev \
    --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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox