Skip to content
Commit 13765de8 authored by Tadeusz Struk's avatar Tadeusz Struk Committed by Peter Zijlstra
Browse files

sched/fair: Fix fault in reweight_entity

Syzbot found a GPF in reweight_entity. This has been bisected to
commit 4ef0c5c6 ("kernel/sched: Fix sched_fork() access an invalid
sched_task_group")

There is a race between sched_post_fork() and setpriority(PRIO_PGRP)
within a thread group that causes a null-ptr-deref in
reweight_entity() in CFS. The scenario is that the main process spawns
number of new threads, which then call setpriority(PRIO_PGRP, 0, -20),
wait, and exit.  For each of the new threads the copy_process() gets
invoked, which adds the new task_struct and calls sched_post_fork()
for it.

In the above scenario there is a possibility that
setpriority(PRIO_PGRP) and set_one_prio() will be called for a thread
in the group that is just being created by copy_process(), and for
which the sched_post_fork() has not been executed yet. This will
trigger a null pointer dereference in reweight_entity(), as it will
try to access the run queue pointer, which hasn't been set.

Before the mentioned change the cfs_rq pointer for the task  has been
set in sched_fork(), which is called much earlier in copy_process(),
before the new task is added to the thread_group.  Now it is done in
the sched_post_fork(), which is called after that.  To fix the issue
the remove the update_load param from the update_load param() function
and call reweight_task() only if the task flag doesn't have the
TASK_NEW flag set.

Fixes: 4ef0c5c6

 ("kernel/sched: Fix sched_fork() access an invalid sched_task_group")
Reported-by: default avatar <syzbot+af7a719bc92395ee41b3@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarTadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarPeter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: default avatarDietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220203161846.1160750-1-tadeusz.struk@linaro.org
parent 26291c54
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment