linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] memcg: take reference before releasing rcu_read

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: <20130329145900.GI21227@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:	Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:59:00 +0100
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To:	Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>
Cc:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg: take reference before releasing rcu_read_lock

On Fri 29-03-13 18:28:57, Li Zefan wrote:
> The memcg is not referenced, so it can be destroyed at anytime right
> after we exit rcu read section, so it's not safe to access it.
> 
> To fix this, we call css_tryget() to get a reference while we're still
> in rcu read section.
> 
> This also removes a bogus comment above __memcg_create_cache_enqueue().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>

Looks good to me.
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>

> ---
>  mm/memcontrol.c | 63 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------
>  1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index bbe0742..01fe340 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -3456,7 +3456,6 @@ static void memcg_create_cache_work_func(struct work_struct *w)
>  
>  /*
>   * Enqueue the creation of a per-memcg kmem_cache.
> - * Called with rcu_read_lock.
>   */
>  static void __memcg_create_cache_enqueue(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
>  					 struct kmem_cache *cachep)
> @@ -3464,12 +3463,8 @@ static void __memcg_create_cache_enqueue(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
>  	struct create_work *cw;
>  
>  	cw = kmalloc(sizeof(struct create_work), GFP_NOWAIT);
> -	if (cw == NULL)
> -		return;
> -
> -	/* The corresponding put will be done in the workqueue. */
> -	if (!css_tryget(&memcg->css)) {
> -		kfree(cw);
> +	if (cw == NULL) {
> +		css_put(&memcg->css);
>  		return;
>  	}
>  
> @@ -3525,10 +3520,9 @@ struct kmem_cache *__memcg_kmem_get_cache(struct kmem_cache *cachep,
>  
>  	rcu_read_lock();
>  	memcg = mem_cgroup_from_task(rcu_dereference(current->mm->owner));
> -	rcu_read_unlock();
>  
>  	if (!memcg_can_account_kmem(memcg))
> -		return cachep;
> +		goto out;
>  
>  	idx = memcg_cache_id(memcg);
>  
> @@ -3537,29 +3531,38 @@ struct kmem_cache *__memcg_kmem_get_cache(struct kmem_cache *cachep,
>  	 * code updating memcg_caches will issue a write barrier to match this.
>  	 */
>  	read_barrier_depends();
> -	if (unlikely(cachep->memcg_params->memcg_caches[idx] == NULL)) {
> -		/*
> -		 * If we are in a safe context (can wait, and not in interrupt
> -		 * context), we could be be predictable and return right away.
> -		 * This would guarantee that the allocation being performed
> -		 * already belongs in the new cache.
> -		 *
> -		 * However, there are some clashes that can arrive from locking.
> -		 * For instance, because we acquire the slab_mutex while doing
> -		 * kmem_cache_dup, this means no further allocation could happen
> -		 * with the slab_mutex held.
> -		 *
> -		 * Also, because cache creation issue get_online_cpus(), this
> -		 * creates a lock chain: memcg_slab_mutex -> cpu_hotplug_mutex,
> -		 * that ends up reversed during cpu hotplug. (cpuset allocates
> -		 * a bunch of GFP_KERNEL memory during cpuup). Due to all that,
> -		 * better to defer everything.
> -		 */
> -		memcg_create_cache_enqueue(memcg, cachep);
> -		return cachep;
> +	if (likely(cachep->memcg_params->memcg_caches[idx])) {
> +		cachep = cachep->memcg_params->memcg_caches[idx];
> +		goto out;
>  	}
>  
> -	return cachep->memcg_params->memcg_caches[idx];
> +	/* The corresponding put will be done in the workqueue. */
> +	if (!css_tryget(&memcg->css))
> +		goto out;
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * If we are in a safe context (can wait, and not in interrupt
> +	 * context), we could be be predictable and return right away.
> +	 * This would guarantee that the allocation being performed
> +	 * already belongs in the new cache.
> +	 *
> +	 * However, there are some clashes that can arrive from locking.
> +	 * For instance, because we acquire the slab_mutex while doing
> +	 * kmem_cache_dup, this means no further allocation could happen
> +	 * with the slab_mutex held.
> +	 *
> +	 * Also, because cache creation issue get_online_cpus(), this
> +	 * creates a lock chain: memcg_slab_mutex -> cpu_hotplug_mutex,
> +	 * that ends up reversed during cpu hotplug. (cpuset allocates
> +	 * a bunch of GFP_KERNEL memory during cpuup). Due to all that,
> +	 * better to defer everything.
> +	 */
> +	memcg_create_cache_enqueue(memcg, cachep);
> +	return cachep;
> +out:
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
> +	return cachep;
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(__memcg_kmem_get_cache);
>  
> -- 
> 1.8.0.2

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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/