On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 03:43:54PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 04:01:41PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > So, the only way the patch could have caused the above is if someone
> > who isn't the task itself is writing to the bitfields while the task
> > is running. Looking through the fields, ->sched_reset_on_fork seems a
> > bit suspicious. __sched_setscheduler() looks like it can modify the
> > bit while the target task is running. Peter, am I misreading the
> > code?
>
> Nope, that's quite possible. Looks like we need to break up those
> bitfields a bit. All the scheduler ones should be serialized by
> scheduler locks, but the others are fair game.
Maybe something like so; but my brain is a complete mess today.
---
include/linux/sched.h | 11 ++++++-----
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
index f425aac63317..b474e0f05327 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -1455,14 +1455,15 @@ struct task_struct {
/* Used for emulating ABI behavior of previous Linux versions */
unsigned int personality;
- unsigned in_execve:1; /* Tell the LSMs that the process is doing an
- * execve */
- unsigned in_iowait:1;
-
- /* Revert to default priority/policy when forking */
+ /* scheduler bits, serialized by scheduler locks */
unsigned sched_reset_on_fork:1;
unsigned sched_contributes_to_load:1;
unsigned sched_migrated:1;
+ unsigned __padding_sched:29;
+
+ /* unserialized, strictly 'current' */
+ unsigned in_execve:1; /* bit to tell LSMs we're in execve */
+ unsigned in_iowait:1;
#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
unsigned memcg_may_oom:1;
#endif
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>