From: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@xxxxxxx>
[ Upstream commit 93b73858701fd01de26a4a874eb95f9b7156fd4b ]
cpu_cgroup_css_online() calls cpu_util_update_eff() without holding the
uclamp_mutex or rcu_read_lock() like other call sites, which is
a mistake.
The uclamp_mutex is required to protect against concurrent reads and
writes that could update the cgroup hierarchy.
The rcu_read_lock() is required to traverse the cgroup data structures
in cpu_util_update_eff().
Surround the caller with the required locks and add some asserts to
better document the dependency in cpu_util_update_eff().
Fixes: 7226017ad37a ("sched/uclamp: Fix a bug in propagating uclamp value in new cgroups")
Reported-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210510145032.1934078-3-qais.yousef@xxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
kernel/sched/core.c | 7 +++++++
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 3fe7daf9d31d..f59166fe499a 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -8693,7 +8693,11 @@ static int cpu_cgroup_css_online(struct cgroup_subsys_state *css)
#ifdef CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK_GROUP
/* Propagate the effective uclamp value for the new group */
+ mutex_lock(&uclamp_mutex);
+ rcu_read_lock();
cpu_util_update_eff(css);
+ rcu_read_unlock();
+ mutex_unlock(&uclamp_mutex);
#endif
return 0;
@@ -8783,6 +8787,9 @@ static void cpu_util_update_eff(struct cgroup_subsys_state *css)
enum uclamp_id clamp_id;
unsigned int clamps;
+ lockdep_assert_held(&uclamp_mutex);
+ SCHED_WARN_ON(!rcu_read_lock_held());
+
css_for_each_descendant_pre(css, top_css) {
uc_parent = css_tg(css)->parent
? css_tg(css)->parent->uclamp : NULL;
--
2.30.2
