linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] memcg: Replace mm->owner with mm->memcg

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:   Fri, 4 May 2018 16:20:57 +0200
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, mingo@...nel.org,
        paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, keescook@...omium.org, riel@...hat.com,
        tglx@...utronix.de, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
        marcos.souza.org@...il.com, hoeun.ryu@...il.com,
        pasha.tatashin@...cle.com, gs051095@...il.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
        rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg: Replace mm->owner with mm->memcg

On 05/03, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> writes:
>
> > On 05/02, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >>
> >> +static void mem_cgroup_fork(struct task_struct *tsk)
> >> +{
> >> +	struct cgroup_subsys_state *css;
> >> +
> >> +	rcu_read_lock();
> >> +	css = task_css(tsk, memory_cgrp_id);
> >> +	if (css && css_tryget(css))
> >> +		task_update_memcg(tsk, mem_cgroup_from_css(css));
> >> +	rcu_read_unlock();
> >> +}
> >
> > Why do we need it?
> >
> > The child's mm->memcg was already initialized by mm_init_memcg() and we can't
> > race with migrate until cgroup_threadgroup_change_end() ?
>
> I admit I missed the cgroup_threadgroup_change_begin
> cgroup_threadgroup_change_end pair in fs fork.  In this case it doesn't
> matter because mm_init_memcg is called from:
>
>    copy_mm
>       dup_mm
>         mm_init
>
> And copy_mm is called before we call cgroup_threadgroup_change_begin.
> So the race remains.

Ah yes, you are right.

> We could move move cgroup_threadgroup_change_begin earlier, to remove
> the need for mem_cgroup_fork.  But I have not analyzed that.

No, cgroup_threadgroup_change_begin() was called early and this was wrong, see
568ac888215c7fb2fabe8ea739b00ec3c1f5d440. Actually there were more problems, say
copy_net() could deadlock because cleanup_net() does do_wait() with net_mutex held.


OK, what about exec() ? mm_init_memcg() initializes bprm->mm->memcg early in
bprm_mm_init(). What if the execing task migrates before exec_mmap() ?

Oleg.