Paul reported rcutorture occasionally hitting a NULL deref:

  sched_ttwu_pending()
    ttwu_do_wakeup()
      check_preempt_curr() := check_preempt_wakeup()
        find_matching_se()
          is_same_group()
            if (se->cfs_rq == pse->cfs_rq) <-- *BOOM*

Debugging showed that this only appears to happen when we take the new
code-path from commit:

  2ebb1771 ("sched/core: Offload wakee task activation if it the wakee is descheduling")

and only when @cpu == smp_processor_id(). Something which should not
be possible, because p->on_cpu can only be true for remote tasks.
Similarly, without the new code-path from commit:

  c6e7bd7a ("sched/core: Optimize ttwu() spinning on p->on_cpu")

this would've unconditionally hit:

  smp_cond_load_acquire(&p->on_cpu, !VAL);

and if: 'cpu == smp_processor_id() && p->on_cpu' is possible, this
would result in an instant live-lock (with IRQs disabled), something
that hasn't been reported.

The NULL deref can be explained however if the task_cpu(p) load at the
beginning of try_to_wake_up() returns an old value, and this old value
happens to be smp_processor_id(). Further assume that the p->on_cpu
load accurately returns 1, it really is still running, just not here.

Then, when we enqueue the task locally, we can crash in exactly the
observed manner because p->se.cfs_rq != rq->cfs_rq, because p's cfs_rq
is from the wrong CPU, therefore we'll iterate into the non-existant
parents and NULL deref.

The closest semi-plausible scenario I've managed to contrive is
somewhat elaborate (then again, actual reproduction takes many CPU
hours of rcutorture, so it can't be anything obvious):

					X->cpu = 1
					rq(1)->curr = X

	CPU0				CPU1				CPU2

					// switch away from X
					LOCK rq(1)->lock
					smp_mb__after_spinlock
					dequeue_task(X)
					  X->on_rq = 9
					switch_to(Z)
					  X->on_cpu = 0
					UNLOCK rq(1)->lock

									// migrate X to cpu 0
									LOCK rq(1)->lock
									dequeue_task(X)
									set_task_cpu(X, 0)
									  X->cpu = 0
									UNLOCK rq(1)->lock

									LOCK rq(0)->lock
									enqueue_task(X)
									  X->on_rq = 1
									UNLOCK rq(0)->lock

	// switch to X
	LOCK rq(0)->lock
	smp_mb__after_spinlock
	switch_to(X)
	  X->on_cpu = 1
	UNLOCK rq(0)->lock

	// X goes sleep
	X->state = TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE
	smp_mb();			// wake X
					ttwu()
					  LOCK X->pi_lock
					  smp_mb__after_spinlock

					  if (p->state)

					  cpu = X->cpu; // =? 1

					  smp_rmb()

	// X calls schedule()
	LOCK rq(0)->lock
	smp_mb__after_spinlock
	dequeue_task(X)
	  X->on_rq = 0

					  if (p->on_rq)

					  smp_rmb();

					  if (p->on_cpu && ttwu_queue_wakelist(..)) [*]

					  smp_cond_load_acquire(&p->on_cpu, !VAL)

					  cpu = select_task_rq(X, X->wake_cpu, ...)
					  if (X->cpu != cpu)
	switch_to(Y)
	  X->on_cpu = 0
	UNLOCK rq(0)->lock

However I'm having trouble convincing myself that's actually possible
on x86_64 -- after all, every LOCK implies an smp_mb() there, so if ttwu
observes ->state != RUNNING, it must also observe ->cpu != 1.

(Most of the previous ttwu() races were found on very large PowerPC)

Nevertheless, this fully explains the observed failure case.

Fix it by ordering the task_cpu(p) load after the p->on_cpu load,
which is easy since nothing actually uses @cpu before this.

Fixes: c6e7bd7a ("sched/core: Optimize ttwu() spinning on p->on_cpu")
Reported-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
Tested-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200622125649.GC576871@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net