Commit d8d28c8f authored by Daniel Bristot de Oliveira's avatar Daniel Bristot de Oliveira Committed by Ingo Molnar

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, &param);
	param.sched_priority = 1;
	sched_setparam(0, &param);
	param.sched_priority = 0;
	sched_getparam(0, &param);
	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: default avatarDaniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarPeter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: default avatarSteven 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: 7479f3c9 "sched: Move SCHED_RESET_ON_FORK into attr::sched_flags"
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/9ebe0566a08dbbb3999759d3f20d6004bb2dbcfa.1406079891.git.bristot@redhat.comSigned-off-by: default avatarIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
parent 64aa90f2
......@@ -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;
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment