| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20100222120605.GU9738@laptop>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 23:06:05 +1100
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To: Miao Xie <miaox@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Lee Schermerhorn <lee.schermerhorn@...com>
Subject: Re: [regression] cpuset,mm: update tasks' mems_allowed in time
(58568d2)
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 07:53:39PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
> I'm sorry for replying this late.
No problem.
> on 2010-2-19 18:06, David Rientjes wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >
> >>> guarantee_online_cpus() truly does require callback_mutex, the
> >>> cgroup_scan_tasks() iterator locking can protect changes in the cgroup
> >>> hierarchy but it doesn't protect a store to cs->cpus_allowed or for
> >>> hotplug.
> >>
> >> Right, but the callback_mutex was being removed by this patch.
> >>
> >
> > I was making the case for it to be readded :)
>
> But cgroup_mutex is held when someone changes cs->cpus_allowed or doing hotplug,
> so I think callback_mutex is not necessary in this case.
So long as that's done consistently (and we should update the comments
too).
> >>> top_cpuset.cpus_allowed will always need to track cpu_active_map since
> >>> those are the schedulable cpus, it looks like that's initialized for SMP
> >>> and the cpu hotplug notifier does that correctly.
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure what the logic is doing in cpuset_attach() where cs is the
> >>> cpuset to attach to:
> >>>
> >>> if (cs == &top_cpuset) {
> >>> cpumask_copy(cpus_attach, cpu_possible_mask);
> >>> to = node_possible_map;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> cpus_attach is properly protected by cgroup_lock, but using
> >>> node_possible_map here will set task->mems_allowed to node_possible_map
> >>> when the cpuset does not have memory_migrate enabled. This is the source
> >>> of your oops, I think.
> >>
> >> Could be, yes.
> >>
> >
> > I'd be interested to see if you still get the same oops with the patch at
> > the end of this email that fixes this logic.
>
> I think this patch can't fix this bug, because mems_allowed of tasks in the
> top group is set to node_possible_map by default, not when the task is
> attached.
>
> I made a new patch at the end of this email to fix it, but I have no machine
> to test it now. who can test it for me.
I can test it for you, but I wonder about your barriers.
>
> ---
> diff --git a/init/main.c b/init/main.c
> index 4cb47a1..512ba15 100644
> --- a/init/main.c
> +++ b/init/main.c
> @@ -846,7 +846,7 @@ static int __init kernel_init(void * unused)
> /*
> * init can allocate pages on any node
> */
> - set_mems_allowed(node_possible_map);
> + set_mems_allowed(node_states[N_HIGH_MEMORY]);
> /*
> * init can run on any cpu.
> */
> diff --git a/kernel/cpuset.c b/kernel/cpuset.c
> index ba401fa..e29b440 100644
> --- a/kernel/cpuset.c
> +++ b/kernel/cpuset.c
> @@ -935,10 +935,12 @@ static void cpuset_migrate_mm(struct mm_struct *mm, const nodemask_t *from,
> struct task_struct *tsk = current;
>
> tsk->mems_allowed = *to;
> + wmb();
>
> do_migrate_pages(mm, from, to, MPOL_MF_MOVE_ALL);
>
> guarantee_online_mems(task_cs(tsk),&tsk->mems_allowed);
> + wmb();
> }
>
> /*
You always need to comment barriers (and use smp_ variants unless you're
doing mmio).
> @@ -1391,11 +1393,10 @@ static void cpuset_attach(struct cgroup_subsys *ss, struct cgroup *cont,
>
> if (cs == &top_cpuset) {
> cpumask_copy(cpus_attach, cpu_possible_mask);
> - to = node_possible_map;
> } else {
> guarantee_online_cpus(cs, cpus_attach);
> - guarantee_online_mems(cs, &to);
> }
> + guarantee_online_mems(cs, &to);
>
> /* do per-task migration stuff possibly for each in the threadgroup */
> cpuset_attach_task(tsk, &to, cs);
> @@ -2090,15 +2091,19 @@ static int cpuset_track_online_cpus(struct notifier_block *unused_nb,
> static int cpuset_track_online_nodes(struct notifier_block *self,
> unsigned long action, void *arg)
> {
> + nodemask_t oldmems;
> +
> cgroup_lock();
> switch (action) {
> case MEM_ONLINE:
> - case MEM_OFFLINE:
> + oldmems = top_cpuset.mems_allowed;
> mutex_lock(&callback_mutex);
> top_cpuset.mems_allowed = node_states[N_HIGH_MEMORY];
> mutex_unlock(&callback_mutex);
> - if (action == MEM_OFFLINE)
> - scan_for_empty_cpusets(&top_cpuset);
> + update_tasks_nodemask(&top_cpuset, &oldmems, NULL);
> + break;
> + case MEM_OFFLINE:
> + scan_for_empty_cpusets(&top_cpuset);
> break;
> default:
> break;
> diff --git a/kernel/kthread.c b/kernel/kthread.c
> index fbb6222..84c7f99 100644
> --- a/kernel/kthread.c
> +++ b/kernel/kthread.c
> @@ -219,7 +219,7 @@ int kthreadd(void *unused)
> set_task_comm(tsk, "kthreadd");
> ignore_signals(tsk);
> set_cpus_allowed_ptr(tsk, cpu_all_mask);
> - set_mems_allowed(node_possible_map);
> + set_mems_allowed(node_states[N_HIGH_MEMORY]);
>
> current->flags |= PF_NOFREEZE | PF_FREEZER_NOSIG;
>
--
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