mirror of
https://github.com/torvalds/linux.git
synced 2026-06-02 11:33:28 +02:00
sched/ext: Avoid null ptr traversal when ->put_prev_task() is called with NULL next
Early when trying to get sched_ext and proxy-exe working together,
I kept tripping over NULL ptr in put_prev_task_scx() on the line:
if (sched_class_above(&ext_sched_class, next->sched_class)) {
Which was due to put_prev_task() passes a NULL next, calling:
prev->sched_class->put_prev_task(rq, prev, NULL);
put_prev_task_scx() already guards for a NULL next in the
switch_class case, but doesn't seem to have a guard for
sched_class_above() check.
I can't say I understand why this doesn't trip usually without
proxy-exec. And in newer kernels there are way fewer
put_prev_task(), and I can't easily reproduce the issue now
even with proxy-exec.
But we still have one put_prev_task() call left in core.c that
seems like it could trip this, so I wanted to send this out for
consideration.
tj: put_prev_task() can be called with NULL @next; however, when @p is
queued, that doesn't happen, so this condition shouldn't currently be
triggerable. The connection isn't straightforward or necessarily reliable,
so add the NULL check even if it can't currently be triggered.
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20251206022218.1541878-1-jstultz@google.com
Signed-off-by: John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
This commit is contained in:
parent
517a44d185
commit
12b5cd99a0
|
|
@ -2402,7 +2402,7 @@ static void put_prev_task_scx(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p,
|
|||
* ops.enqueue() that @p is the only one available for this cpu,
|
||||
* which should trigger an explicit follow-up scheduling event.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
if (sched_class_above(&ext_sched_class, next->sched_class)) {
|
||||
if (next && sched_class_above(&ext_sched_class, next->sched_class)) {
|
||||
WARN_ON_ONCE(!(sch->ops.flags & SCX_OPS_ENQ_LAST));
|
||||
do_enqueue_task(rq, p, SCX_ENQ_LAST, -1);
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user