From: Fushuai Wang <fushuai.wang@linux.dev>
To: sshegde@linux.ibm.com
Cc: bsegall@google.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
fushuai.wang@linux.dev, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
kprateek.nayak@amd.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
mgorman@suse.de, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org,
rostedt@goodmis.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
vschneid@redhat.com, wangfushuai@baidu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/core: Fix a TOCTOU bug in sched_non_preferred_cpu_push_stop()
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2026 11:21:17 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20261110032117.44762-1-fushuai.wang@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3dcbccdd-0a50-4b57-b0bf-79b55911bfa2@linux.ibm.com>
>> From: Fushuai Wang <wangfushuai@baidu.com>
>>
>> sched_push_current_non_preferred_cpu() is called in irq context. It
>> checks is_migration_disabled() before queuing the stopper, but the
>> task may continue running and enter migrate_disable() before the stopper
>> runs.
>> Recheck is_migration_disabled() in sched_non_preferred_cpu_push_stop()
>> before calling __migrate_task().
>>
>> WARNING: kernel/sched/core.c:3432 at set_task_cpu+0x1b8/0xdf0, CPU#21: migration/21/152
>> Stopper: sched_non_preferred_cpu_push_stop+0x0/0xb10 <- sched_push_current_non_preferred_cpu+0x6a6/0x9a0
>> ...
>> Call Trace:
>> <TASK>
>> ? __this_cpu_preempt_check+0x13/0x20
>> move_queued_task+0xfc/0x650
>> ? is_cpu_allowed+0x341/0x820
>> ? __this_cpu_preempt_check+0x13/0x20
>> sched_non_preferred_cpu_push_stop+0x7b7/0xb10
>> ? __pfx_sched_non_preferred_cpu_push_stop+0x10/0x10
>> ...
>> </TASK>
>>
>
> How does rest of the stack look like? Is it disabling preemption where
> stopper is not getting a chance to run before task sets migrate_disable?
Hi, Shrikanth.
Yes, this occurs in the case where preemption is disabled.
And the full stack like this:
WARNING: kernel/sched/core.c:3432 at set_task_cpu+0x1b8/0xdf0, CPU#21: migration/21/152
CPU: 21 UID: 0 PID: 152 Comm: migration/21 Tainted: G W O 7.4.0-rc1 #3 PREEMPT(lazy)
Stopper: sched_non_preferred_cpu_push_stop+0x0/0xb10 <- sched_push_current_non_preferred_cpu+0x6a6/0x9a0
RIP: 0010:set_task_cpu+0x1b8/0xdf0
Code: fc ff df 48 89 fa 48 c1 ea 03 0f b6 04 02 84 c0 74 08 3c 01 0f 8e 20 09 00 00 66 41 83 be 30 09 00 00 00 74 07 45 84 ff 75 02 <0f> 0b 0f 1f 44 00 00 65 44 8b 3d 01 4e 67 05 48 b8 00 00 00 00 00
RSP: 0018:ffa0000000bafb80 EFLAGS: 00010046
RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000015 RCX: 0000000000000000
RDX: 1fe2200044524126 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: ff11000222920930
RBP: ffa0000000bafbd8 R08: ffffffff8c419c7c R09: 0000000000000000
R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: 0000000000000015
R13: ff11000222920014 R14: ff11000222920000 R15: 0000000000000000
FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ff1100159121e000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
CR2: 000005d5cf5e3200 CR3: 00000001282cc001 CR4: 0000000000771ef0
PKRU: 55555554
Call Trace:
<TASK>
? set_task_cpu+0x5/0xdf0
move_queued_task+0xfc/0x650
? is_cpu_allowed+0x341/0x820
? __this_cpu_preempt_check+0x13/0x20
sched_non_preferred_cpu_push_stop+0x7b7/0xb10
? __this_cpu_preempt_check+0x13/0x20
? __pfx_sched_non_preferred_cpu_push_stop+0x10/0x10
? __pfx_sched_non_preferred_cpu_push_stop+0x10/0x10
? sched_non_preferred_cpu_push_stop+0x5/0xb10
? __pfx_sched_non_preferred_cpu_push_stop+0x10/0x10
cpu_stopper_thread+0x205/0x410
? smpboot_thread_fn+0x307/0xa60
? __pfx_cpu_stopper_thread+0x10/0x10
smpboot_thread_fn+0x352/0xa60
? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10
kthread+0x3a6/0x4d0
? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
ret_from_fork+0x68e/0xb40
? __pfx_ret_from_fork+0x10/0x10
? __kasan_check_read+0x11/0x20
? __switch_to+0x592/0x1210
? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
</TASK>
>> Fixes: 74699f56ebcf ("sched/core: Push current task from non preferred CPU")
>> Signed-off-by: Fushuai Wang <wangfushuai@baidu.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/sched/core.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> index 1a088d4576f5..8ed7613eafd6 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> @@ -11317,7 +11317,8 @@ static int sched_non_preferred_cpu_push_stop(void *arg)
>> rq->npc_push_work_pending = false;
>> update_rq_clock(rq);
>>
>> - if (task_rq(p) == rq && task_on_rq_queued(p)) {
>> + if (task_rq(p) == rq && task_on_rq_queued(p) &&
>> + !is_migration_disabled(p)) {
>> struct rq *dest_rq = __migrate_task(rq, &rf, p, cpu);
>>
>
> I thought it is unnecessary.
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/4e2421fe-4b26-4d92-8709-bfa8d3a4114a@linux.ibm.com/#t
>
Sorry about missing this.
> Can you share how you are running into this?
Yes, I asked my LLM to reproduce the issue.
First, it wrote a ko to control preferred cpumask switching, making cpu1
preferred half of the time and non-preferred the other half, while cpu0
is always preferred. Second, it wrote a userspace bpf that is initially
pinned to cpu1, then changes its affinity to {0,1}, and continuously calls
BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN, beacaue it invokes bpf_prog_run_pin_on_cpu(),which include
migrate_disable().
I think the biggest difference of sched_push_current_non_preferred_cpu() and
balance_push() is that sched_push_current_non_preferred_cpu() runs in irq context
while balance_push() runs in task context.
So, a balance_push() path be like:
task context:
migrate_disable()
preempt_disable()
migration_disabled = 1
preempt_enable()
is_migration_disabled()
While a sched_push_current_non_preferred_cpu() path be like:
task context: irq context:
migrate_disable()
preempt_disable()
is_migration_disabled()
migration_disabled = 1
preempt_enable()
So I think a recheck is necessary.
Regards,
Fushuai.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-11-10 3:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-11-09 8:31 Fushuai Wang
2026-11-09 14:02 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-11-10 3:21 ` Fushuai Wang [this message]
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=20261110032117.44762-1-fushuai.wang@linux.dev \
--to=fushuai.wang@linux.dev \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sshegde@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=wangfushuai@baidu.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®