linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/7] memcg: use css_get in sock_update

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]

Date:	Fri, 5 Apr 2013 15:38:15 +0200
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Cc:	Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/7] memcg: use css_get in sock_update_memcg()

On Fri 05-04-13 12:08:40, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On 04/03/2013 07:29 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 03-04-13 16:58:48, Glauber Costa wrote:
> >> On 04/03/2013 01:11 PM, Li Zefan wrote:
> >>> Use css_get/css_put instead of mem_cgroup_get/put.
> >>>
> >>> Note, if at the same time someone is moving @current to a different
> >>> cgroup and removing the old cgroup, css_tryget() may return false,
> >>> and sock->sk_cgrp won't be initialized.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>  mm/memcontrol.c | 8 ++++----
> >>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> >>> index 23d0f6e..43ca91d 100644
> >>> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> >>> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> >>> @@ -536,15 +536,15 @@ void sock_update_memcg(struct sock *sk)
> >>>  		 */
> >>>  		if (sk->sk_cgrp) {
> >>>  			BUG_ON(mem_cgroup_is_root(sk->sk_cgrp->memcg));
> >>> -			mem_cgroup_get(sk->sk_cgrp->memcg);
> >>> +			css_get(&sk->sk_cgrp->memcg->css);
> > 
> > I am not sure I understand this one. So we have a goup here (which means
> > that somebody already took a reference on it, right?) and we are taking
> > another reference. If this is released by sock_release_memcg then who
> > releases the previous one? It is not directly related to the patch
> > because this has been done previously already. Could you clarify
> > Glauber, please?
> 
> This should be documented in the commit that introduced this, and it was
> one of the first bugs I've handled with this code.
> 
> Bottom line, we can create sockets normally, and those will have process
> context. But we also can create sockets by cloning existing sockets. To
> the best of my knowledge, this is done by things like accept().
> 
> Because those sockets are a clone of their ancestors, they also belong
> to a workload that should be limited. Also note that because they have
> cgroup context, we will eventually try to put them. So we need to grab
> an extra reference.
> 
> socket_update_cgroup is always called at socket creation, and the
> original structures are filled with zeroes. Therefore cloning is the
> *only* path that takes us here with sk->sk_cgroup filled.

OK, I guess I understand.

Thanks for the clarification, Galuber!
-- 
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/