linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 13/18] memcg/sl[au]b Track all the memcg children of a kmem

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <508FBA99.3010009@parallels.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:31:37 +0400
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	JoonSoo Kim <js1304@...il.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>,
	Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 13/18] memcg/sl[au]b Track all the memcg children of
 a kmem_cache.

On 10/29/2012 07:26 PM, JoonSoo Kim wrote:
> 2012/10/19 Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>:
>> +void kmem_cache_destroy_memcg_children(struct kmem_cache *s)
>> +{
>> +       struct kmem_cache *c;
>> +       int i;
>> +
>> +       if (!s->memcg_params)
>> +               return;
>> +       if (!s->memcg_params->is_root_cache)
>> +               return;
>> +
>> +       /*
>> +        * If the cache is being destroyed, we trust that there is no one else
>> +        * requesting objects from it. Even if there are, the sanity checks in
>> +        * kmem_cache_destroy should caught this ill-case.
>> +        *
>> +        * Still, we don't want anyone else freeing memcg_caches under our
>> +        * noses, which can happen if a new memcg comes to life. As usual,
>> +        * we'll take the set_limit_mutex to protect ourselves against this.
>> +        */
>> +       mutex_lock(&set_limit_mutex);
>> +       for (i = 0; i < memcg_limited_groups_array_size; i++) {
>> +               c = s->memcg_params->memcg_caches[i];
>> +               if (c)
>> +                       kmem_cache_destroy(c);
>> +       }
>> +       mutex_unlock(&set_limit_mutex);
>> +}
> 
> It may cause NULL deref.
> Look at the following scenario.
> 
> 1. some memcg slab caches has remained object.
> 2. start to destroy memcg.
> 3. schedule_delayed_work(kmem_cache_destroy_work_func, @delay 60hz)
> 4. all remained object is freed.
> 5. start to destroy root cache.
> 6. kmem_cache_destroy makes 's->memcg_params->memcg_caches[i]" NULL!!
> 7. Start delayed work function.
> 8. cachep in kmem_cache_destroy_work_func() may be NULL
> 
> Thanks.
> 
Thanks for spotting. This is the same problem we have in
memcg_cache_destroy(),
which I solved by not respawning the worker.

In here, I believe it should be possible to just cancel all remaining
pending work, since we are now in the process of deleting the caches
ourselves.



--
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/