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:   Sat, 14 Jul 2018 21:25:31 -0700
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To:     Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: avoid bothering interrupted task when charge memcg in softirq

On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 7:10 PM Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 11:38 PM, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 1:32 AM Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> try_charge maybe executed in packet receive path, which is in interrupt
> >> context.
> >> In this situation, the 'current' is the interrupted task, which may has
> >> no relation to the rx softirq, So it is nonsense to use 'current'.
> >>
> >
> > Have you actually seen this occurring?
>
> Hi Shakeel,
>
> I'm trying to produce this issue, but haven't find it occur yet.
>
> > I am not very familiar with the
> > network code but I can think of two ways try_charge() can be called
> > from network code. Either through kmem charging or through
> > mem_cgroup_charge_skmem() and both locations correctly handle
> > interrupt context.
> >
>
> Why do you say that mem_cgroup_charge_skmem() correctly hanle
> interrupt context ?
>
> Let me show you why mem_cgroup_charge_skmem isn't hanling interrupt
> context correctly.
>
> mem_cgroup_charge_skmem() is calling  try_charge() twice.
> The first one is with GFP_NOWAIT as the gfp_mask, and the second one
> is with  (GFP_NOWAIT |  __GFP_NOFAIL) as the gfp_mask.
>
> If page_counter_try_charge() failes at the first time, -ENOMEM is returned.
> Then mem_cgroup_charge_skmem() will call try_charge() once more with
> __GFP_NOFAIL set, and this time if If page_counter_try_charge() failes
> again the '
> force' label in  try_charge() will be executed and 0 is returned.
>
> No matter what, the 'current' will be used and touched, that is
> meaning mem_cgroup_charge_skmem() isn't hanling the interrupt context
> correctly.
>

Hi Yafang,

If you check mem_cgroup_charge_skmem(), the memcg passed is not
'current' but is from the sock object i.e. sk->sk_memcg for which the
network buffer is allocated for.

If the network buffers is allocated through kmem interface, the
charging is bypassed altogether (through memcg_kmem_bypass()) for
interrupt context.

regards,
Shakeel

Powered by blists - more mailing lists