Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 6 Nov 2019 14:08:38 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, aaron.lwe@gmail.com,
        valentin.schneider@arm.com, mingo@kernel.org, pauld@redhat.com,
        jdesfossez@digitalocean.com, naravamudan@digitalocean.com,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
        juri.lelli@redhat.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com,
        mgorman@suse.de, kernel-team@android.com, john.stultz@linaro.org
Subject: Re: NULL pointer dereference in pick_next_task_fair
Message-ID: <20191106130838.GL5671@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20191028174603.GA246917@google.com>
 <20191106120525.GX4131@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191106120525.GX4131@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 01:05:25PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 05:46:03PM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > 
> > After digging a bit, the offending commit seems to be:
> > 
> >     67692435c411 ("sched: Rework pick_next_task() slow-path")
> > 
> > By 'offending' I mean that reverting it makes the issue go away. The
> > issue comes from the fact that pick_next_entity() returns a NULL se in
> > the 'simple' path of pick_next_task_fair(), which causes obvious
> > problems in the subsequent call to set_next_entity().
> > 
> > I'll dig more, but if anybody understands the issue in the meatime feel
> > free to send me a patch to try out :)
> 
> So for all those who didn't follow along on IRC, the below seems to cure
> things.
> 
> The only thing I'm now considering is if we shouldn't be setting
> ->on_cpu=2 _before_ calling put_prev_task(). I'll go audit the RT/DL
> cases.

So I think it all works, but that's more by accident than anything else.
I'll move the ->on_cpu=2 assignment earlier. That clearly avoids calling
put_prev_task() while we're in put_prev_task().