linux-kernel - [BUGFIX][PATCH v2 -stable] memcg: avoid oom-killing innocent task in case of use

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20091125143218.96156a5f.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>
Date:	Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:32:18 +0900
From:	Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
To:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	stable <stable@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
Subject: [BUGFIX][PATCH v2 -stable] memcg: avoid oom-killing innocent task
 in case of use_hierarchy

> Hmm. Maybe not-expected behavior...could you add comment ?
> 
How about this ?

> Acked-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
> (*) I'm sorry I can't work enough in these days.
> 

BTW, this patch conflict with oom-dump-stack-and-vm-state-when-oom-killer-panics.patch
in current mmotm(that's why I post mmotm version separately), so this bug will not be fixed
till 2.6.33 in linus-tree.
So I think this patch should go in 2.6.32.y too.

===
From: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>

task_in_mem_cgroup(), which is called by select_bad_process() to check whether
a task can be a candidate for being oom-killed from memcg's limit, checks
"curr->use_hierarchy"("curr" is the mem_cgroup the task belongs to).

But this check return true(it's false positive) when:

	<some path>/00		use_hierarchy == 0	<- hitting limit
	  <some path>/00/aa	use_hierarchy == 1	<- "curr"

This leads to killing an innocent task in 00/aa. This patch is a fix for this
bug. And this patch also fixes the arg for mem_cgroup_print_oom_info(). We
should print information of mem_cgroup which the task being killed, not current,
belongs to.

Signed-off-by: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
Acked-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Reviewed-by: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
 mm/memcontrol.c |    8 +++++++-
 mm/oom_kill.c   |    2 +-
 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index fd4529d..566925e 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -496,7 +496,13 @@ int task_in_mem_cgroup(struct task_struct *task, const struct mem_cgroup *mem)
 	task_unlock(task);
 	if (!curr)
 		return 0;
-	if (curr->use_hierarchy)
+	/*
+	 * We should check use_hierarchy of "mem" not "curr". Because checking
+	 * use_hierarchy of "curr" here make this function true if hierarchy is
+	 * enabled in "curr" and "curr" is a child of "mem" in *cgroup*
+	 * hierarchy(even if use_hierarchy is disabled in "mem").
+	 */
+	if (mem->use_hierarchy)
 		ret = css_is_ancestor(&curr->css, &mem->css);
 	else
 		ret = (curr == mem);
diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
index a7b2460..ed452e9 100644
--- a/mm/oom_kill.c
+++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
@@ -400,7 +400,7 @@ static int oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *p, gfp_t gfp_mask, int order,
 		cpuset_print_task_mems_allowed(current);
 		task_unlock(current);
 		dump_stack();
-		mem_cgroup_print_oom_info(mem, current);
+		mem_cgroup_print_oom_info(mem, p);
 		show_mem();
 		if (sysctl_oom_dump_tasks)
 			dump_tasks(mem);
-- 
1.5.6.1

--
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/