lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: UBSAN: shift-out-of-bounds in load_balance
Date
On 23/02/21 14:45, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 at 13:03, Valentin Schneider
> <valentin.schneider@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> +Vincent
>>
>> On 22/02/21 09:12, syzbot wrote:
>> > syzbot has found a reproducer for the following issue on:
>> >
>> > HEAD commit: 31caf8b2 Merge branch 'linus' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/..
>> > git tree: upstream
>> > console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=16ab2682d00000
>> > kernel config: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=b81388f0b32761d4
>> > dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=d7581744d5fd27c9fbe1
>> > syz repro: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.syz?x=1277457f500000
>> >
>> > IMPORTANT: if you fix the issue, please add the following tag to the commit:
>> > Reported-by: syzbot+d7581744d5fd27c9fbe1@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
>> >
>> > ================================================================================
>> > UBSAN: shift-out-of-bounds in kernel/sched/fair.c:7712:14
>> > shift exponent 149 is too large for 64-bit type 'long unsigned int'
>>
>> That 149 is surprising.
>
> Yes, surprising. But is it really a problem in itself ? shifting left
> would be a problem because of the overflow but here we shift right to
> divide and the result is correct
>

I would tend to think so, but the UB seems to apply regardless of the
shifting direction:

"""
If the value of the right operand is negative or is greater than or equal
to the width of the promoted left operand, the behavior is undefined.
"""

> Beside this, it seems that a significant number of previous attempts
> to balance load has been done with another migration_type otherwise it
> would have raised a problem earlier (at 65) if previous LB were also
> migration_load. It would be good to understand why the 148 previous
> ones failed
>
>>
>> sd->cache_nice_tries is \in {1, 2}, and sd->nr_balanced_failed should be in
>> the same ballpark.
>>
>> A successful load_balance() resets it to 0; a failed one increments
>> it. Once it gets to sd->cache_nice_tries + 3, this should trigger an active
>> balance, which will either set it to sd->cache_nice_tries+1 or reset it to
>> 0. There is this one condition that could let it creep up uncontrollably:
>>
>> /*
>> * Don't kick the active_load_balance_cpu_stop,
>> * if the curr task on busiest CPU can't be
>> * moved to this_cpu:
>> */
>> if (!cpumask_test_cpu(this_cpu, busiest->curr->cpus_ptr)) {
>> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&busiest->lock,
>> flags);
>> goto out_one_pinned;
>> }
>>
>> So despite the resulting sd->balance_interval increase, repeatedly hitting
>> this might yield the above. Would we then want something like this?
>>
>> ---
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index 8a8bd7b13634..b65c24b5ae91 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -7422,6 +7422,11 @@ struct lb_env {
>> struct list_head tasks;
>> };
>>
>> +static inline unsigned int sd_balance_failed_cap(struct sched_domain *sd)
>> +{
>> + return sd->cache_nice_tries + 3;
>> +}
>> +
>> /*
>> * Is this task likely cache-hot:
>> */
>> @@ -9493,7 +9498,7 @@ imbalanced_active_balance(struct lb_env *env)
>> * threads on a system with spare capacity
>> */
>> if ((env->migration_type == migrate_task) &&
>> - (sd->nr_balance_failed > sd->cache_nice_tries+2))
>> + (sd->nr_balance_failed >= sd_balance_failed_cap(sd)))
>> return 1;
>>
>> return 0;
>> @@ -9737,8 +9742,10 @@ static int load_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq,
>> * frequent, pollute the failure counter causing
>> * excessive cache_hot migrations and active balances.
>> */
>> - if (idle != CPU_NEWLY_IDLE)
>> - sd->nr_balance_failed++;
>> + if (idle != CPU_NEWLY_IDLE) {
>> + sd->nr_balance_failed = min(sd->nr_balance_failed + 1,
>> + sd_balance_failed_cap(sd));
>
> nr_balance_failed is an interesting metric that we want to monitor
> sometimes and we would like to be able to divide higher than
> 2^(sd->cache_nice_tries + 3).
>
> If we really want to prevent out of bound shift, The below is more
> appropriate IMO:
>
> index 636741fa27c9..4d0b3fa30849 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -7707,7 +7707,7 @@ static int detach_tasks(struct lb_env *env)
> * migrate.
> */
>
> - if ((load >> env->sd->nr_balance_failed) >
> env->imbalance)
> + if ((load >> min_t(int,
> env->sd->nr_balance_failed, BITS_PER_LONG)) > env->imbalance)
> goto next;
>

From the UB definition above, sounds like we need to cap at

BITS_PER_TYPE(unsigned long) - 1

i.e. something like

#define shr_bound(val, shift) \
(val >> min_t(int, shift, BITS_PER_TYPE(val) - 1))

> env->imbalance -= load;
>
>
>> + }
>>
>> if (need_active_balance(&env)) {
>> unsigned long flags;
>>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-23 16:54    [W:0.034 / U:24.432 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site