On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 03:24:26PM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 12:47 AM Theodore Ts'o <ty...@mit.edu> wrote:
> >
> > More details about what is going on. First, it requires root, because
> > one of that is required is using sched_setattr (which is enough to
> > shoot yourself in the foot):
> >
> > sched_setattr(0, {size=0, sched_policy=0x6 /* SCHED_??? */, sched_flags=0,
> > sched_nice=0, sched_priority=0, sched_runtime=2251799813724439,
> > sched_deadline=4611686018427453437, sched_period=0}, 0) = 0
> >
> > This is setting the scheduler policy to be SCHED_DEADLINE, with a
> > runtime parameter of 2251799.813724439 seconds (or 26 days) and a
> > deadline of 4611686018.427453437 seconds (or 146 *years*). This means
> > a particular kernel thread can run for up to 26 **days** before it is
> > scheduled away, and if a kernel reads gets woken up or sent a signal,
> > no worries, it will wake up roughly seven times the interval that Rip
> > Van Winkle spent snoozing in a cave in the Catskill Mountains (in
> > Washington Irving's short story).
> >
> > We then kick off a half-dozen threads all running:
> >
> > sendfile(fd, fd, &pos, 0x8080fffffffe);
> >
> > (and since count is a ridiculously large number, this gets cut down to):
> >
> > sendfile(fd, fd, &pos, 2147479552);
> >
> > Is it any wonder that we are seeing RCU stalls? :-)
>
> +Peter, Ingo for sched_setattr and +Paul for rcu
>
> First of all: is it a semi-intended result of a root (CAP_SYS_NICE)
> doing local DoS abusing sched_setattr? It would perfectly reasonable
> to starve other processes, but I am not sure about rcu. In the end the
> high prio process can use rcu itself, and then it will simply blow
> system memory by stalling rcu. So it seems that rcu stalls should not
> happen as a result of weird sched_setattr values. If that is the case,
> what needs to be fixed? sched_setattr? rcu? sendfile?
Does the (untested, probably does not even build) patch shown below help?
This patch assumes that the kernel was built with CONFIG_PREEMPT=n.
And that I found all the tight loops on the do_sendfile() code path.
> If this is semi-intended, the only option I see is to disable
> something in syzkaller: sched_setattr entirely, or drop CAP_SYS_NICE,
> or ...? Any preference either way?
Long-running tight loops in the kernel really should contain
cond_resched() or better.
Thanx, Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------
diff --git a/fs/splice.c b/fs/splice.c
index 25212dcca2df..50aa3286764a 100644
--- a/fs/splice.c
+++ b/fs/splice.c
@@ -985,6 +985,7 @@ ssize_t splice_direct_to_actor(struct file *in, struct
splice_desc *sd,
sd->pos = prev_pos + ret;
goto out_release;
}
+ cond_resched();
}
done:
