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, 4 Dec 2019 13:32:25 +0000
From:   Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
        Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Patrick Bellasi <Patrick.Bellasi@arm.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Null pointer crash at find_idlest_group on db845c w/ linus/master
Message-ID: <20191204133224.uiqbkbpseree7xou@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <CALAqxLXrWWnWi32BR1F8JOtrGt1y2Kzj__zWopLx1ZfRy3EZKA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKfTPtAvnLY3brp9iy_aHNu0rMM8nLfgeLc3CXEkMk3bwU1weA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20191204094216.u7yld5r3zelp22lf@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <20191204100925.GA15727@linaro.org>
 <629cca09-dde7-5d77-42e1-c68f2c1820d2@arm.com>
 <CAKfTPtDZLFn7msw88pTE_wr-BJo2ErqxpOW+ah0Jjcg6vE3SLw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtDZLFn7msw88pTE_wr-BJo2ErqxpOW+ah0Jjcg6vE3SLw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171215
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 12/04/19 13:08, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 11:41, Valentin Schneider
> <valentin.schneider@arm.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 04/12/2019 10:09, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > Now, we test that a group has at least one allowed CPU for the task so we
> > > could skip the local group with the correct/wrong p->cpus_ptr
> > >
> > > The path is used for fork/exec ibut also for wakeup path for b.L when the task doesn't fit in the CPUs
> > >
> > > So we can probably imagine a scenario where we change task affinity while
> > > sleeping. If the wakeup happens on a CPU that belongs to the group that is not
> > > allowed, we can imagine that we skip the local_group
> > >
> >
> > Shoot, I think you're right. If it is the local group that is NULL, then
> > we most likely splat on:
> >
> >                 if (local->sgc->max_capacity >= idlest->sgc->max_capacity)
> >                         return NULL;
> >
> > We don't splat before because we just use local_sgs, which is uninitialized
> > but on the stack.
> >
> > Also; does it really have to involve an affinity "race"? AFAIU affinity
> > could have been changed a while back, but the waking CPU isn't allowed
> > so we skip the local_group (in simpler cases where each CPU is a group).
> 
> In fact, this will depend of the uninitialized values of local_sgs. I
> have been able to reproduce the situation where we skip local group
> but not to trigger the crash because the values already in the stack
> don't trigger the misfit comparison.

Will it be expensive to initialize local_sgs = {0}?

--
Qais Yousef