linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] memcg: dirty pages accounting and limiting infrastructure

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]

Message-ID: <28c262361002252153s587b70ecxf89eda9a642e527c@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:53:39 +0900
From:	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
To:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Andrea Righi <arighi@...eler.com>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] memcg: dirty pages accounting and limiting 
	infrastructure

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 2:01 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
<kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:50:04 +0900
> Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> > Hm ? I don't read the whole thread but can_attach() is called under
>> > cgroup_mutex(). So, it doesn't need to use RCU.
>>
>> Vivek mentioned memcg is protected by RCU if I understand his intention right.
>> So I commented that without enough knowledge of memcg.
>> After your comment, I dive into the code.
>>
>> Just out of curiosity.
>>
>> Really, memcg is protected by RCU?
> yes. All cgroup subsystem is protected by RCU.
>
>> I think most of RCU around memcg is for protecting task_struct and
>> cgroup_subsys_state.
>> The memcg is protected by cgroup_mutex as you mentioned.
>> Am I missing something?
>
> There are several levels of protections.
>
> cgroup subsystem's ->destroy() call back is finally called by
>
> As this.
>
>  768                 synchronize_rcu();
>  769
>  770                 mutex_lock(&cgroup_mutex);
>  771                 /*
>  772                  * Release the subsystem state objects.
>  773                  */
>  774                 for_each_subsys(cgrp->root, ss)
>  775                         ss->destroy(ss, cgrp);
>  776
>  777                 cgrp->root->number_of_cgroups--;
>  778                 mutex_unlock(&cgroup_mutex);
>
> Before here,
>        - there are no tasks under this cgroup (cgroup's refcnt is 0)
>          && cgroup is marked as REMOVED.
>
> Then, this access
>        rcu_read_lock();
>        mem = mem_cgroup_from_task(task);
>        if (css_tryget(mem->css))   <===============checks cgroup refcnt

If it it, do we always need css_tryget after mem_cgroup_from_task
without cgroup_mutex to make sure css is vaild?

But I found several cases that don't call css_tryget

1. mm_match_cgroup
It's used by page_referenced_xxx. so we I think we don't grab
cgroup_mutex at that time.

2. mem_cgroup_oom_called
I think in here we don't grab cgroup_mutex, too.

I guess some design would cover that problems.
Could you tell me if you don't mind?
Sorry for bothering you.

Thanks, Kame.



-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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/