lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:08:57 -0700
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org
Cc:	stable-review@...nel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: [48/70] vmscan: all_unreclaimable() use zone->all_unreclaimable as a name

2.6.38-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let us know.

------------------

From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>

commit 929bea7c714220fc76ce3f75bef9056477c28e74 upstream.

all_unreclaimable check in direct reclaim has been introduced at 2.6.19
by following commit.

	2006 Sep 25; commit 408d8544; oom: use unreclaimable info

And it went through strange history. firstly, following commit broke
the logic unintentionally.

	2008 Apr 29; commit a41f24ea; page allocator: smarter retry of
				      costly-order allocations

Two years later, I've found obvious meaningless code fragment and
restored original intention by following commit.

	2010 Jun 04; commit bb21c7ce; vmscan: fix do_try_to_free_pages()
				      return value when priority==0

But, the logic didn't works when 32bit highmem system goes hibernation
and Minchan slightly changed the algorithm and fixed it .

	2010 Sep 22: commit d1908362: vmscan: check all_unreclaimable
				      in direct reclaim path

But, recently, Andrey Vagin found the new corner case. Look,

	struct zone {
	  ..
	        int                     all_unreclaimable;
	  ..
	        unsigned long           pages_scanned;
	  ..
	}

zone->all_unreclaimable and zone->pages_scanned are neigher atomic
variables nor protected by lock.  Therefore zones can become a state of
zone->page_scanned=0 and zone->all_unreclaimable=1.  In this case, current
all_unreclaimable() return false even though zone->all_unreclaimabe=1.

This resulted in the kernel hanging up when executing a loop of the form

1. fork
2. mmap
3. touch memory
4. read memory
5. munmmap

as described in
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/1348725#1348725

Is this ignorable minor issue?  No.  Unfortunately, x86 has very small dma
zone and it become zone->all_unreclamble=1 easily.  and if it become
all_unreclaimable=1, it never restore all_unreclaimable=0.  Why?  if
all_unreclaimable=1, vmscan only try DEF_PRIORITY reclaim and
a-few-lru-pages>>DEF_PRIORITY always makes 0.  that mean no page scan at
all!

Eventually, oom-killer never works on such systems.  That said, we can't
use zone->pages_scanned for this purpose.  This patch restore
all_unreclaimable() use zone->all_unreclaimable as old.  and in addition,
to add oom_killer_disabled check to avoid reintroduce the issue of commit
d1908362 ("vmscan: check all_unreclaimable in direct reclaim path").

Reported-by: Andrey Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>
Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Reviewed-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>

---
 mm/vmscan.c |   24 +++++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@
 #include <linux/memcontrol.h>
 #include <linux/delayacct.h>
 #include <linux/sysctl.h>
+#include <linux/oom.h>
 
 #include <asm/tlbflush.h>
 #include <asm/div64.h>
@@ -1988,17 +1989,12 @@ static bool zone_reclaimable(struct zone
 	return zone->pages_scanned < zone_reclaimable_pages(zone) * 6;
 }
 
-/*
- * As hibernation is going on, kswapd is freezed so that it can't mark
- * the zone into all_unreclaimable. It can't handle OOM during hibernation.
- * So let's check zone's unreclaimable in direct reclaim as well as kswapd.
- */
+/* All zones in zonelist are unreclaimable? */
 static bool all_unreclaimable(struct zonelist *zonelist,
 		struct scan_control *sc)
 {
 	struct zoneref *z;
 	struct zone *zone;
-	bool all_unreclaimable = true;
 
 	for_each_zone_zonelist_nodemask(zone, z, zonelist,
 			gfp_zone(sc->gfp_mask), sc->nodemask) {
@@ -2006,13 +2002,11 @@ static bool all_unreclaimable(struct zon
 			continue;
 		if (!cpuset_zone_allowed_hardwall(zone, GFP_KERNEL))
 			continue;
-		if (zone_reclaimable(zone)) {
-			all_unreclaimable = false;
-			break;
-		}
+		if (!zone->all_unreclaimable)
+			return false;
 	}
 
-	return all_unreclaimable;
+	return true;
 }
 
 /*
@@ -2108,6 +2102,14 @@ out:
 	if (sc->nr_reclaimed)
 		return sc->nr_reclaimed;
 
+	/*
+	 * As hibernation is going on, kswapd is freezed so that it can't mark
+	 * the zone into all_unreclaimable. Thus bypassing all_unreclaimable
+	 * check.
+	 */
+	if (oom_killer_disabled)
+		return 0;
+
 	/* top priority shrink_zones still had more to do? don't OOM, then */
 	if (scanning_global_lru(sc) && !all_unreclaimable(zonelist, sc))
 		return 1;


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ