On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 04:28:23PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 05:14:48PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 09:37:13AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > When exec'ing a 32-bit task on a system with mismatched support for
> > > 32-bit EL0, try to ensure that it starts life on a CPU that can actually
> > > run it.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > arch/arm64/kernel/process.c | 12 +++++++++++-
> > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
> > > index 1540ab0fbf23..17b94007fed4 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
> > > @@ -625,6 +625,16 @@ unsigned long arch_align_stack(unsigned long sp)
> > > return sp & ~0xf;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static void adjust_compat_task_affinity(struct task_struct *p)
> > > +{
> > > + const struct cpumask *mask = system_32bit_el0_cpumask();
> > > +
> > > + if (restrict_cpus_allowed_ptr(p, mask))
> > > + set_cpus_allowed_ptr(p, mask);
> >
> > This silently destroys user state, at the very least that ought to go
> > with a WARN or something. Ideally SIGKILL though. What's to stop someone
> > from doing a sched_setaffinity() right after the execve, same problem.
> > So why bother..
>
> It's no different to CPU hot-unplug though, is it? From the perspective of
> the 32-bit task, the 64-bit-only cores were hot-unplugged at the point of
> execve(). Calls to sched_setaffinity() for 32-bit tasks will reject attempts
> to include 64-bit-only cores.
select_fallback_rq() has a printk() in to at least notify things went
bad. But I don't particularly like the current hotplug semantics; I've
wanted to disallow the hotplug when it would result in this case, but
computing that is tricky. It's one of those things that's forever on the
todo list ... :/
> I initially wanted to punt this all to userspace, but one of the big
> problems with that is when a 64-bit task is running on a CPU only capable
> of running 64-bit tasks and it execve()s a 32-bit task. At the point, we
> have to do something because we can't even run the new task for it to do
> a sched_affinity() call (and we also can't deliver SIGILL).
Userspace can see that one coming though... I suppose you can simply
make the execve fail before the point of no return.
