From: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, David Vernet <void@manifault.com>,
Changwoo Min <changwoo@igalia.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/4] sched_ext: idle: Validate locking correctness in scx_bpf_select_cpu_and()
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 21:11:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250515191716.327518-3-arighi@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250515191716.327518-1-arighi@nvidia.com>
Validate locking correctness when accessing p->nr_cpus_allowed and
p->cpus_ptr inside scx_bpf_select_cpu_and(): if the rq lock is held,
access is safe; otherwise, require that p->pi_lock is held.
This allows to catch potential unsafe calls to scx_bpf_select_cpu_and().
Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
---
kernel/sched/ext_idle.c | 10 ++++++++++
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/ext_idle.c b/kernel/sched/ext_idle.c
index f0ebf8b5b908e..716863f1f8cee 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/ext_idle.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/ext_idle.c
@@ -935,6 +935,7 @@ __bpf_kfunc s32 scx_bpf_select_cpu_dfl(struct task_struct *p, s32 prev_cpu,
__bpf_kfunc s32 scx_bpf_select_cpu_and(struct task_struct *p, s32 prev_cpu, u64 wake_flags,
const struct cpumask *cpus_allowed, u64 flags)
{
+ struct rq *rq;
s32 cpu;
if (!kf_cpu_valid(prev_cpu, NULL))
@@ -946,6 +947,15 @@ __bpf_kfunc s32 scx_bpf_select_cpu_and(struct task_struct *p, s32 prev_cpu, u64
if (!scx_kf_allowed(SCX_KF_SELECT_CPU | SCX_KF_ENQUEUE))
return -EPERM;
+ /*
+ * Validate locking correctness to access p->cpus_ptr and
+ * p->nr_cpus_allowed: if we're holding an rq lock, we're safe;
+ * otherwise, assert that p->pi_lock is held.
+ */
+ rq = scx_locked_rq();
+ if (!rq)
+ lockdep_assert_held(&p->pi_lock);
+
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
/*
* This may also be called from ops.enqueue(), so we need to handle
--
2.49.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-05-15 19:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-05-15 19:11 [PATCHSET v2 sched_ext/for-6.16] sched_ext: Extend usability of scx_bpf_select_cpu_and() Andrea Righi
2025-05-15 19:11 ` [PATCH 1/4] sched_ext: Make scx_kf_allowed_if_unlocked() available outside ext.c Andrea Righi
2025-05-15 19:11 ` Andrea Righi [this message]
2025-05-15 19:11 ` [PATCH 3/4] sched_ext: idle: Allow scx_bpf_select_cpu_and() from unlocked context Andrea Righi
2025-05-17 17:54 ` David Vernet
2025-05-17 22:50 ` Andrea Righi
2025-05-18 0:40 ` David Vernet
2025-05-18 5:52 ` Andrea Righi
2025-05-18 13:49 ` David Vernet
2025-05-15 19:11 ` [PATCH 4/4] selftests/sched_ext: Add test for scx_bpf_select_cpu_and() via test_run Andrea Righi
2025-05-19 18:02 ` [PATCHSET v2 sched_ext/for-6.16] sched_ext: Extend usability of scx_bpf_select_cpu_and() Tejun Heo
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=20250515191716.327518-3-arighi@nvidia.com \
--to=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=changwoo@igalia.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®