scx_bpf_cpu_rq() currently allows accessing struct rq fields without
holding the associated rq.
It is being used by scx_cosmos, scx_flash, scx_lavd, scx_layered, and
scx_tickless. Fortunately it is only ever used to fetch rq->curr.
So provide an alternative scx_bpf_remote_curr() that doesn't expose struct rq
and provide a hardened scx_bpf_cpu_rq_locked() by ensuring we hold the rq lock.
Add a deprecation warning to scx_bpf_cpu_rq() that mentions the two alternatives.

This also simplifies scx code from:

rq = scx_bpf_cpu_rq(cpu);
if (!rq)
	return;
p = rq->curr
/* ... Do something with p */

into:

p = scx_bpf_remote_curr(cpu);
/* ... Do something with p */

v4:
Remove cpu argument from scx_bpf_cpu_rq_locked() as SCX has a unique
locked_rq_state anyway. (Tejun)
Expose RCU pointer in scx_bpf_remote_curr() (Peter)
v3:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250805111036.130121-1-christian.loehle@arm.com/
Don't change scx_bpf_cpu_rq() do not break BPF schedulers without the
grace period. Just add the deprecation warning and do the hardening in
the new scx_bpf_cpu_rq_locked(). (Andrea, Tejun, Jake)
v2:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250804112743.711816-1-christian.loehle@arm.com/
- Open-code bpf_task_acquire() to avoid the forward declaration (Andrea)
- Rename scx_bpf_task_acquire_remote_curr() to make it more explicit it
behaves like bpf_task_acquire()
- Dis
v1:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250801141741.355059-1-christian.loehle@arm.com/
- scx_bpf_cpu_rq() now errors when a not locked rq is requested. (Andrea)
- scx_bpf_remote_curr() calls bpf_task_acquire() which BPF user needs to
release. (Andrea)

Christian Loehle (3):
  sched_ext: Introduce scx_bpf_cpu_rq_locked()
  sched_ext: Introduce scx_bpf_remote_curr()
  sched_ext: deprecation warn for scx_bpf_cpu_rq()

 kernel/sched/ext.c                       | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
 tools/sched_ext/include/scx/common.bpf.h |  2 ++
 2 files changed, 42 insertions(+)

--
2.34.1

On 9/1/25 14:26, Christian Loehle wrote:
> scx_bpf_cpu_rq() currently allows accessing struct rq fields without
> holding the associated rq.
> It is being used by scx_cosmos, scx_flash, scx_lavd, scx_layered, and
> scx_tickless. Fortunately it is only ever used to fetch rq->curr.
> So provide an alternative scx_bpf_remote_curr() that doesn't expose struct rq
> and provide a hardened scx_bpf_cpu_rq_locked() by ensuring we hold the rq lock.
> Add a deprecation warning to scx_bpf_cpu_rq() that mentions the two alternatives.
> 
> This also simplifies scx code from:
> 
> rq = scx_bpf_cpu_rq(cpu);
> if (!rq)
> 	return;
> p = rq->curr
> /* ... Do something with p */
> 
> into:
> 
> p = scx_bpf_remote_curr(cpu);
> /* ... Do something with p */
> 
> v4:
> Remove cpu argument from scx_bpf_cpu_rq_locked() as SCX has a unique
> locked_rq_state anyway. (Tejun)
> Expose RCU pointer in scx_bpf_remote_curr() (Peter)
> v3:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250805111036.130121-1-christian.loehle@arm.com/
> Don't change scx_bpf_cpu_rq() do not break BPF schedulers without the
> grace period. Just add the deprecation warning and do the hardening in
> the new scx_bpf_cpu_rq_locked(). (Andrea, Tejun, Jake)
> v2:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250804112743.711816-1-christian.loehle@arm.com/
> - Open-code bpf_task_acquire() to avoid the forward declaration (Andrea)
> - Rename scx_bpf_task_acquire_remote_curr() to make it more explicit it
> behaves like bpf_task_acquire()
> - Dis
> v1:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250801141741.355059-1-christian.loehle@arm.com/
> - scx_bpf_cpu_rq() now errors when a not locked rq is requested. (Andrea)
> - scx_bpf_remote_curr() calls bpf_task_acquire() which BPF user needs to
> release. (Andrea)
> 
> Christian Loehle (3):
>   sched_ext: Introduce scx_bpf_cpu_rq_locked()
>   sched_ext: Introduce scx_bpf_remote_curr()
>   sched_ext: deprecation warn for scx_bpf_cpu_rq()
> 
>  kernel/sched/ext.c                       | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  tools/sched_ext/include/scx/common.bpf.h |  2 ++
>  2 files changed, 42 insertions(+)
> 
> --
> 2.34.1
> 

Messed up my git-send-mail here :/
Anyway either one of those v5 cover letters is the correct one.