linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: slab shrinkers: BUG at mm/list

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: <20130618062623.GA20528@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:26:24 +0400
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...il.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: slab shrinkers: BUG at mm/list_lru.c:92

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 02:30:05AM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 02:35:08PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:14:12 +0400 Glauber Costa <glommer@...il.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > > I managed to trigger:
> > > > [ 1015.776029] kernel BUG at mm/list_lru.c:92!
> > > > [ 1015.776029] invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP
> > > > with Linux next (next-20130607) with https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/6/17/203
> > > > on top. 
> > > > 
> > > > This is obviously BUG_ON(nlru->nr_items < 0) and 
> > > > ffffffff81122d0b:       48 85 c0                test   %rax,%rax
> > > > ffffffff81122d0e:       49 89 44 24 18          mov    %rax,0x18(%r12)
> > > > ffffffff81122d13:       0f 84 87 00 00 00       je     ffffffff81122da0 <list_lru_walk_node+0x110>
> > > > ffffffff81122d19:       49 83 7c 24 18 00       cmpq   $0x0,0x18(%r12)
> > > > ffffffff81122d1f:       78 7b                   js     ffffffff81122d9c <list_lru_walk_node+0x10c>
> > > > [...]
> > > > ffffffff81122d9c:       0f 0b                   ud2
> > > > 
> > > > RAX is -1UL.
> > > Yes, fearing those kind of imbalances, we decided to leave the counter as a signed quantity
> > > and BUG, instead of an unsigned quantity.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I assume that the current backtrace is of no use and it would most
> > > > probably be some shrinker which doesn't behave.
> > > > 
> > > There are currently 3 users of list_lru in tree: dentries, inodes and xfs.
> > > Assuming you are not using xfs, we are left with dentries and inodes.
> > > 
> > > The first thing to do is to find which one of them is misbehaving. You can try finding
> > > this out by the address of the list_lru, and where it lays in the superblock.
> > > 
> > > Once we know each of them is misbehaving, then we'll have to figure out why.
> > 
> > The trace says shrink_slab_node->super_cache_scan->prune_icache_sb.  So
> > it's inodes?
> > 
> Assuming there is no memory corruption of any sort going on , let's check the code.
> nr_item is only manipulated in 3 places:
> 
> 1) list_lru_add, where it is increased
> 2) list_lru_del, where it is decreased in case the user have voluntarily removed the
>    element from the list
> 3) list_lru_walk_node, where an element is removing during shrink.
> 
> All three excerpts seem to be correctly locked, so something like this indicates an imbalance.
> Either the element was never added to the list, or it was added, removed, and we didn't notice
> it. (Again, your backing storage is not XFS, is it? If it is , we have another user to look for)
> 
> I will assume that Andrew is correct and this is inode related. list_lru_del reads as follows:
>         spin_lock(&nlru->lock);
>         if (!list_empty(item)) { ... }
> 
> So one possibility is that we are manipulating this list outside this lock somewhere. Going to
> inode.c... We always manipulate the LRU inside the lock, but the element is not always in the LRU,
> if it is in a list. Could it be possible that the element is in the dispose_list, and at the same
> time someone calls list_lru_del at it, creating the imbalance ?
> 
> callers:
> iput_final, evict_inodes, invalidate_inodes.
> Both evict_inodes and invalidate_inodes will do the following pattern:
> 
>                 inode->i_state |= I_FREEING;                                            
>                 inode_lru_list_del(inode);
>                 spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
>                 list_add(&inode->i_lru, &dispose);
> 
> IOW, they will remove the element from the LRU, and add it to the dispose list.
> Both of them will also bail out if they see I_FREEING already set, so they are safe
> against each other - because the flag is manipulated inside the lock.
> 
> But how about iput_final? It seems to me that if we are calling iput_final at the
> same time as the other two, this *could* happen (maybe there is some extra protection
> that can be seen from Australia but not from here. Dave?)
> 
> Right now this is my best theory.
> 
> I am attaching a patch that should make a difference in case I am right.
> 
> 
> 

Which is obviously borked since I did not fix the other callers so to move I_FREEING
after lru del.

Michal, would you mind testing the following patch?


View attachment "inode.patch" of type "text/plain" (1160 bytes)