linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] hugetlb/cgroup: Simplify pre

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: <87wr20f5pj.fsf@skywalker.in.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 19 Jul 2012 15:11:44 +0530
From:	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, mhocko@...e.cz,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hugetlb/cgroup: Simplify pre_destroy callback

Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com> writes:

> on 2012/7/19 10:55, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>
>> Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> writes:
>> 
>>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:04:09 +0530
>>> "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>>
>>>> Since we cannot fail in hugetlb_cgroup_move_parent, we don't really
>>>> need to check whether cgroup have any change left after that. Also skip
>>>> those hstates for which we don't have any charge in this cgroup.
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> +	for_each_hstate(h) {
>>>> +		/*
>>>> +		 * if we don't have any charge, skip this hstate
>>>> +		 */
>>>> +		idx = hstate_index(h);
>>>> +		if (res_counter_read_u64(&h_cg->hugepage[idx], RES_USAGE) == 0)
>>>> +			continue;
>>>> +		spin_lock(&hugetlb_lock);
>>>> +		list_for_each_entry(page, &h->hugepage_activelist, lru)
>>>> +			hugetlb_cgroup_move_parent(idx, cgroup, page);
>>>> +		spin_unlock(&hugetlb_lock);
>>>> +		VM_BUG_ON(res_counter_read_u64(&h_cg->hugepage[idx], RES_USAGE));
>>>> +	}
>>>>  out:
>>>>  	return ret;
>>>>  }
>>>
>>> This looks fishy.
>>>
>>> We test RES_USAGE before taking hugetlb_lock.  What prevents some other
>>> thread from increasing RES_USAGE after that test?
>>>
>>> After walking the list we test RES_USAGE after dropping hugetlb_lock. 
>>> What prevents another thread from incrementing RES_USAGE before that
>>> test, triggering the BUG?
>> 
>> IIUC core cgroup will prevent a new task getting added to the cgroup
>> when we are in pre_destroy. Since we already check that the cgroup doesn't
>> have any task, the RES_USAGE cannot increase in pre_destroy.
>> 
>
>
> You're wrong here. We release cgroup_lock before calling pre_destroy and retrieve
> the lock after that, so a task can be attached to the cgroup in this interval.
>

But that means rmdir can be racy right ? What happens if the task got
added, allocated few pages and then moved out ? We still would have task
count 0 but few pages, which we missed to to move to parent cgroup. 

-aneesh

--
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/