| 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: <CAAmzW4OJGSpEO2_p3v1MZJrh6G=+NSS5UoGqFDvxeaQ0qryvpw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:50:04 +0900
From: JoonSoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>, devel@...nvz.org,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 06/18] consider a memcg parameter in kmem_create_cache
2012/10/19 Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>:
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 6a1e096..59f6d54 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -339,6 +339,12 @@ struct mem_cgroup {
> #if defined(CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM) && defined(CONFIG_INET)
> struct tcp_memcontrol tcp_mem;
> #endif
> +#if defined(CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM)
> + /* analogous to slab_common's slab_caches list. per-memcg */
> + struct list_head memcg_slab_caches;
> + /* Not a spinlock, we can take a lot of time walking the list */
> + struct mutex slab_caches_mutex;
> +#endif
> };
It is better to change name of "slab_caches_mutex to something
representing slab cache mutex of memcg.
> +int memcg_register_cache(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, struct kmem_cache *s)
> +{
> + size_t size = sizeof(struct memcg_cache_params);
> +
> + if (!memcg_kmem_enabled())
> + return 0;
> +
> + s->memcg_params = kzalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!s->memcg_params)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + if (memcg)
> + s->memcg_params->memcg = memcg;
> + return 0;
> +}
Now, I don't read full-patchset and I have not enough knowledge about cgroup.
So I have a question.
When memcg_kmem_enable, creation kmem_cache of normal user(not
included in cgroup) also allocate memcg_params.
Is it right behavior?
> +void memcg_release_cache(struct kmem_cache *s)
> +{
> + kfree(s->memcg_params);
> +}
> +
> /*
> * We need to verify if the allocation against current->mm->owner's memcg is
> * possible for the given order. But the page is not allocated yet, so we'll
> diff --git a/mm/slab.h b/mm/slab.h
> index 5ee1851..c35ecce 100644
> --- a/mm/slab.h
> +++ b/mm/slab.h
> @@ -35,12 +35,15 @@ extern struct kmem_cache *kmem_cache;
> /* Functions provided by the slab allocators */
> extern int __kmem_cache_create(struct kmem_cache *, unsigned long flags);
>
> +struct mem_cgroup;
> #ifdef CONFIG_SLUB
> -struct kmem_cache *__kmem_cache_alias(const char *name, size_t size,
> - size_t align, unsigned long flags, void (*ctor)(void *));
> +struct kmem_cache *
> +__kmem_cache_alias(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, const char *name, size_t size,
> + size_t align, unsigned long flags, void (*ctor)(void *));
> #else
> -static inline struct kmem_cache *__kmem_cache_alias(const char *name, size_t size,
> - size_t align, unsigned long flags, void (*ctor)(void *))
> +static inline struct kmem_cache *
> +__kmem_cache_alias(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, const char *name, size_t size,
> + size_t align, unsigned long flags, void (*ctor)(void *))
> { return NULL; }
> #endif
>
> @@ -98,11 +101,23 @@ static inline bool is_root_cache(struct kmem_cache *s)
> {
> return !s->memcg_params || s->memcg_params->is_root_cache;
> }
> +
> +static inline bool cache_match_memcg(struct kmem_cache *cachep,
> + struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> +{
> + return (is_root_cache(cachep) && !memcg) ||
> + (cachep->memcg_params->memcg == memcg);
> +}
When cachep->memcg_params == NULL and memcg is not NULL, NULL pointer
deref may be occurred.
Is there no situation like above?
> #else
> static inline bool is_root_cache(struct kmem_cache *s)
> {
> return true;
> }
>
> +static inline bool cache_match_memcg(struct kmem_cache *cachep,
> + struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> +{
> + return true;
> +}
> #endif
> #endif
> diff --git a/mm/slab_common.c b/mm/slab_common.c
> index bf4b4f1..f97f7b8 100644
> --- a/mm/slab_common.c
> +++ b/mm/slab_common.c
> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
> #include <asm/cacheflush.h>
> #include <asm/tlbflush.h>
> #include <asm/page.h>
> +#include <linux/memcontrol.h>
>
> #include "slab.h"
>
> @@ -27,7 +28,8 @@ DEFINE_MUTEX(slab_mutex);
> struct kmem_cache *kmem_cache;
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_VM
> -static int kmem_cache_sanity_check(const char *name, size_t size)
> +static int kmem_cache_sanity_check(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, const char *name,
> + size_t size)
> {
> struct kmem_cache *s = NULL;
>
> @@ -53,7 +55,7 @@ static int kmem_cache_sanity_check(const char *name, size_t size)
> continue;
> }
>
> - if (!strcmp(s->name, name)) {
> + if (cache_match_memcg(s, memcg) && !strcmp(s->name, name)) {
> pr_err("%s (%s): Cache name already exists.\n",
> __func__, name);
> dump_stack();
> @@ -66,7 +68,8 @@ static int kmem_cache_sanity_check(const char *name, size_t size)
> return 0;
> }
> #else
> -static inline int kmem_cache_sanity_check(const char *name, size_t size)
> +static inline int kmem_cache_sanity_check(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> + const char *name, size_t size)
> {
> return 0;
> }
> @@ -97,8 +100,9 @@ static inline int kmem_cache_sanity_check(const char *name, size_t size)
> * as davem.
> */
>
> -struct kmem_cache *kmem_cache_create(const char *name, size_t size, size_t align,
> - unsigned long flags, void (*ctor)(void *))
> +struct kmem_cache *
> +kmem_cache_create_memcg(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, const char *name, size_t size,
> + size_t align, unsigned long flags, void (*ctor)(void *))
> {
> struct kmem_cache *s = NULL;
> int err = 0;
> @@ -106,7 +110,7 @@ struct kmem_cache *kmem_cache_create(const char *name, size_t size, size_t align
> get_online_cpus();
> mutex_lock(&slab_mutex);
>
> - if (!kmem_cache_sanity_check(name, size) == 0)
> + if (!kmem_cache_sanity_check(memcg, name, size) == 0)
> goto out_locked;
This compare is somewhat ugly.
How about "if(kmem_cache_sanity_check(memcg, name, size))"?
> /*
> @@ -117,7 +121,7 @@ struct kmem_cache *kmem_cache_create(const char *name, size_t size, size_t align
> */
> flags &= CACHE_CREATE_MASK;
>
> - s = __kmem_cache_alias(name, size, align, flags, ctor);
> + s = __kmem_cache_alias(memcg, name, size, align, flags, ctor);
> if (s)
> goto out_locked;
>
> @@ -126,6 +130,13 @@ struct kmem_cache *kmem_cache_create(const char *name, size_t size, size_t align
> s->object_size = s->size = size;
> s->align = align;
> s->ctor = ctor;
> +
> + if (memcg_register_cache(memcg, s)) {
> + kmem_cache_free(kmem_cache, s);
> + err = -ENOMEM;
> + goto out_locked;
> + }
> +
> s->name = kstrdup(name, GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!s->name) {
> kmem_cache_free(kmem_cache, s);
> @@ -135,10 +146,11 @@ struct kmem_cache *kmem_cache_create(const char *name, size_t size, size_t align
>
> err = __kmem_cache_create(s, flags);
> if (!err) {
> -
> s->refcount = 1;
> - list_add(&s->list, &slab_caches);
> -
> + if (!memcg)
> + list_add(&s->list, &slab_caches);
> + else
> + memcg_cache_list_add(memcg, s);
> } else {
> kfree(s->name);
> kmem_cache_free(kmem_cache, s);
> @@ -166,6 +178,13 @@ out_locked:
>
> return s;
> }
> +
> +struct kmem_cache *
> +kmem_cache_create(const char *name, size_t size, size_t align,
> + unsigned long flags, void (*ctor)(void *))
> +{
> + return kmem_cache_create_memcg(NULL, name, size, align, flags, ctor);
> +}
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(kmem_cache_create);
>
> void kmem_cache_destroy(struct kmem_cache *s)
> @@ -180,6 +199,7 @@ void kmem_cache_destroy(struct kmem_cache *s)
>
> list_del(&s->list);
>
> + memcg_release_cache(s);
> kfree(s->name);
> kmem_cache_free(kmem_cache, s);
> } else {
> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> index a34548e..05aefe2 100644
> --- a/mm/slub.c
> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@
> #include <linux/fault-inject.h>
> #include <linux/stacktrace.h>
> #include <linux/prefetch.h>
> +#include <linux/memcontrol.h>
>
> #include <trace/events/kmem.h>
>
> @@ -3880,7 +3881,7 @@ static int slab_unmergeable(struct kmem_cache *s)
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static struct kmem_cache *find_mergeable(size_t size,
> +static struct kmem_cache *find_mergeable(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, size_t size,
> size_t align, unsigned long flags, const char *name,
> void (*ctor)(void *))
> {
> @@ -3916,17 +3917,20 @@ static struct kmem_cache *find_mergeable(size_t size,
> if (s->size - size >= sizeof(void *))
> continue;
>
> + if (!cache_match_memcg(s, memcg))
> + continue;
> return s;
> }
> return NULL;
> }
>
> -struct kmem_cache *__kmem_cache_alias(const char *name, size_t size,
> - size_t align, unsigned long flags, void (*ctor)(void *))
> +struct kmem_cache *
> +__kmem_cache_alias(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, const char *name, size_t size,
> + size_t align, unsigned long flags, void (*ctor)(void *))
> {
> struct kmem_cache *s;
>
> - s = find_mergeable(size, align, flags, name, ctor);
> + s = find_mergeable(memcg, size, align, flags, name, ctor);
> if (s) {
> s->refcount++;
> /*
If your intention is that find_mergeable() works for memcg-slab-caches properly,
it cannot works properly with this code.
When memcg is not NULL, slab cache is only added to memcg's slab cache list.
find_mergeable() only interate on original-slab-cache list.
So memcg slab cache never be mergeable.
--
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