linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] mm: fix race between kmem_cache destroy, create and deactivate

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 29 May 2018 13:58:11 +0000
From:   Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:     Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>
cc:     Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: fix race between kmem_cache destroy, create and
 deactivate

On Sat, 26 May 2018, Vladimir Davydov wrote:

> > The reference counting is only implemented for root kmem_caches for
> > simplicity. The reference of a root kmem_cache is elevated on sharing or
> > while its memcg kmem_cache creation or deactivation request is in the
> > fly and thus it is made sure that the root kmem_cache is not destroyed
> > in the middle. As the reference of kmem_cache is elevated on sharing,
> > the 'shared_count' does not need any locking protection as at worst it
> > can be out-dated for a small window which is tolerable.
>
> I wonder if we could fix this problem without introducing reference
> counting for kmem caches (which seems a bit of an overkill to me TBO),
> e.g. by flushing memcg_kmem_cache_wq before root cache destruction?

Would prefer that too but the whole memcg handling is something of a
mystery to me.