You are viewing this page in an unauthorized frame window.
This is a potential security issue, you are being redirected to
https://nvd.nist.gov
An official website of the United States government
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock () or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.
This CVE record has been updated after NVD enrichment efforts were completed. Enrichment data supplied by the NVD may require amendment due to these changes.
Description
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
Revert "sched/fair: Make sure to try to detach at least one movable task"
This reverts commit b0defa7ae03ecf91b8bfd10ede430cff12fcbd06.
b0defa7ae03ec changed the load balancing logic to ignore env.max_loop if
all tasks examined to that point were pinned. The goal of the patch was
to make it more likely to be able to detach a task buried in a long list
of pinned tasks. However, this has the unfortunate side effect of
creating an O(n) iteration in detach_tasks(), as we now must fully
iterate every task on a cpu if all or most are pinned. Since this load
balance code is done with rq lock held, and often in softirq context, it
is very easy to trigger hard lockups. We observed such hard lockups with
a user who affined O(10k) threads to a single cpu.
When I discussed this with Vincent he initially suggested that we keep
the limit on the number of tasks to detach, but increase the number of
tasks we can search. However, after some back and forth on the mailing
list, he recommended we instead revert the original patch, as it seems
likely no one was actually getting hit by the original issue.
Metrics
NVD enrichment efforts reference publicly available information to associate
vector strings. CVSS information contributed by other sources is also
displayed.
By selecting these links, you will be leaving NIST webspace.
We have provided these links to other web sites because they
may have information that would be of interest to you. No
inferences should be drawn on account of other sites being
referenced, or not, from this page. There may be other web
sites that are more appropriate for your purpose. NIST does
not necessarily endorse the views expressed, or concur with
the facts presented on these sites. Further, NIST does not
endorse any commercial products that may be mentioned on
these sites. Please address comments about this page to [email protected].
OR
*cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* versions from (including) 6.1 up to (excluding) 6.1.100
*cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* versions from (including) 6.2 up to (excluding) 6.6.41
*cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* versions from (including) 6.7 up to (excluding) 6.9.10
Changed
Reference Type
https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/0fa6dcbfa2e2b97c1e6febbea561badf0931a38b No Types Assigned
New CVE Received from kernel.org8/07/2024 12:15:47 PM
Action
Type
Old Value
New Value
Added
Description
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
Revert "sched/fair: Make sure to try to detach at least one movable task"
This reverts commit b0defa7ae03ecf91b8bfd10ede430cff12fcbd06.
b0defa7ae03ec changed the load balancing logic to ignore env.max_loop if
all tasks examined to that point were pinned. The goal of the patch was
to make it more likely to be able to detach a task buried in a long list
of pinned tasks. However, this has the unfortunate side effect of
creating an O(n) iteration in detach_tasks(), as we now must fully
iterate every task on a cpu if all or most are pinned. Since this load
balance code is done with rq lock held, and often in softirq context, it
is very easy to trigger hard lockups. We observed such hard lockups with
a user who affined O(10k) threads to a single cpu.
When I discussed this with Vincent he initially suggested that we keep
the limit on the number of tasks to detach, but increase the number of
tasks we can search. However, after some back and forth on the mailing
list, he recommended we instead revert the original patch, as it seems
likely no one was actually getting hit by the original issue.