linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [BUGFIX] update mm->owner even if no next owner.

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: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1106101425400.28334@sister.anvils>
Date:	Fri, 10 Jun 2011 14:49:35 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
cc:	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [BUGFIX] update mm->owner even if no next owner.

On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> 
> I think this can be a fix. 

Sorry, I think not: I've not digested your rationale,
but three things stand out:

1. Why has this only just started happening?  I may not have run that
   test on 3.0-rc1, but surely I ran it for hours with 2.6.39;
   maybe not with khugepaged, but certainly with ksmd.

2. Your hunk below:
> -	if (!mm_need_new_owner(mm, p))
> +	if (!mm_need_new_owner(mm, p)) {
> +		rcu_assign_pointer(mm->owner, NULL);
   is now setting mm->owner to NULL at times when we were sure it did not
   need updating before (task is not the owner): you're damaging mm->owner.

3. There's a patch from Andrea in 3.0-rc1 which looks very likely to be
   relevant, 692e0b35427a "mm: thp: optimize memcg charge in khugepaged".
   I'll try reproducing without that tonight (I crashed in 20 minutes
   this morning, so it's not too hard).

Hugh

> maybe good to CC Oleg.
> ==
> From dff52fb35af0cf36486965d19ee79e04b59f1dc4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
> Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:15:14 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH] [BUGFIX] update mm->owner even if no next owner.
> 
> A panic is reported.
> 
> > Call Trace:
> >  [<ffffffff81139792>] mem_cgroup_from_task+0x15/0x17
> >  [<ffffffff8113a75a>] __mem_cgroup_try_charge+0x148/0x4b4
> >  [<ffffffff810493f3>] ? need_resched+0x23/0x2d
> >  [<ffffffff814cbf43>] ? preempt_schedule+0x46/0x4f
> >  [<ffffffff8113afe8>] mem_cgroup_charge_common+0x9a/0xce
> >  [<ffffffff8113b6d1>] mem_cgroup_newpage_charge+0x5d/0x5f
> >  [<ffffffff81134024>] khugepaged+0x5da/0xfaf
> >  [<ffffffff81078ea0>] ? __init_waitqueue_head+0x4b/0x4b
> >  [<ffffffff81133a4a>] ? add_mm_counter.constprop.5+0x13/0x13
> >  [<ffffffff81078625>] kthread+0xa8/0xb0
> >  [<ffffffff814d13e8>] ? sub_preempt_count+0xa1/0xb4
> >  [<ffffffff814d5664>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
> >  [<ffffffff814ce858>] ? retint_restore_args+0x13/0x13
> >  [<ffffffff8107857d>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x5a/0x5a
> 
> The code is.
> >         return container_of(task_subsys_state(p, mem_cgroup_subsys_id),
> >                                 struct mem_cgroup, css);
> 
> 
> What happens here is accssing a freed task struct "p" from mm->owner.
> So, it's doubtful that mm->owner points to freed task struct.
> 
> At thread exit, we need to handle mm->owner. If exitting-thread == mm->owner,
> we modify mm->owner to points to other exisiting task. But, we do not update
> mm->owner when there are no more threads. But if a kernel thread, like khugepaged,
> picks up a mm_struct without updating mm->users, there is a trouble.
> 
> When mm_users shows that the task is the last task belongs to mm.
> mm->owner is not updated and remained to point to the task. So, in this case,
> mm->owner points to a not exisiting task.  This was good because if there
> are no thread, no charge happens in old days. But now, we have ksm and
> khugepaged.
> 
> rcu_read_lock() used in memcg is of no use because mm->owner can be
> freed before we take rcu_read_lock.
> Then, mm->owner should be cleared if there are no next owner.
> 
> Reported-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
> Reported-by: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
> ---
>  kernel/exit.c |    6 ++++--
>  1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/exit.c b/kernel/exit.c
> index 20a4064..dbc3736 100644
> --- a/kernel/exit.c
> +++ b/kernel/exit.c
> @@ -582,8 +582,10 @@ void mm_update_next_owner(struct mm_struct *mm)
>  	struct task_struct *c, *g, *p = current;
>  
>  retry:
> -	if (!mm_need_new_owner(mm, p))
> +	if (!mm_need_new_owner(mm, p)) {
> +		rcu_assign_pointer(mm->owner, NULL);
>  		return;
> +	}
>  
>  	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
>  	/*
> @@ -617,7 +619,7 @@ retry:
>  	 * most likely racing with swapoff (try_to_unuse()) or /proc or
>  	 * ptrace or page migration (get_task_mm()).  Mark owner as NULL.
>  	 */
> -	mm->owner = NULL;
> +	rcu_assign_pointer(mm->owner, NULL);
>  	return;
>  
>  assign_new_owner:
> -- 
> 1.7.4.1