mirror of
https://github.com/AuxXxilium/linux_dsm_epyc7002.git
synced 2024-11-24 13:31:02 +07:00
sched: Fix sched_setparam() policy == -1 logic
The scheduler uses policy == -1 to preserve the current policy state to
implement sched_setparam(). But, as (int) -1 is equals to 0xffffffff,
it's matching the if (policy & SCHED_RESET_ON_FORK) on
_sched_setscheduler(). This match changes the policy value to an
invalid value, breaking the sched_setparam() syscall.
This patch checks policy == -1 before check the SCHED_RESET_ON_FORK flag.
The following program shows the bug:
int main(void)
{
struct sched_param param = {
.sched_priority = 5,
};
sched_setscheduler(0, SCHED_FIFO, ¶m);
param.sched_priority = 1;
sched_setparam(0, ¶m);
param.sched_priority = 0;
sched_getparam(0, ¶m);
if (param.sched_priority != 1)
printf("failed priority setting (found %d instead of 1)\n",
param.sched_priority);
else
printf("priority setting fine\n");
}
Signed-off-by: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 3.14+
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Fixes: 7479f3c9cf
"sched: Move SCHED_RESET_ON_FORK into attr::sched_flags"
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/9ebe0566a08dbbb3999759d3f20d6004bb2dbcfa.1406079891.git.bristot@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
This commit is contained in:
parent
64aa90f26c
commit
d8d28c8f00
@ -3558,9 +3558,10 @@ static int _sched_setscheduler(struct task_struct *p, int policy,
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* Fixup the legacy SCHED_RESET_ON_FORK hack
|
||||
* Fixup the legacy SCHED_RESET_ON_FORK hack, except if
|
||||
* the policy=-1 was passed by sched_setparam().
|
||||
*/
|
||||
if (policy & SCHED_RESET_ON_FORK) {
|
||||
if ((policy != -1) && (policy & SCHED_RESET_ON_FORK)) {
|
||||
attr.sched_flags |= SCHED_FLAG_RESET_ON_FORK;
|
||||
policy &= ~SCHED_RESET_ON_FORK;
|
||||
attr.sched_policy = policy;
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user