linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpuset: mm: Reduce large amounts of memory barrier related damage v3

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 29 Aug 2013 11:56:57 +0100
From:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Miao Xie <miaox@...fujitsu.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, riel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpuset: mm: Reduce large amounts of memory barrier
 related damage v3

On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 11:43:42AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:28:29AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 08:15:46PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 03:03:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > So I think this patch is broken (still).
> > 
> > I am assuming the lack of complaints is that it is not a heavily executed
> > path. I expect that you (and Rik) are hitting this as part of automatic
> > NUMA balancing. Still a bug, just slightly less urgent if NUMA balancing
> > is the reproduction case.
> 
> I thought it was, we crashed somewhere suspiciously close, but no. You
> need shared mpols for this to actually trigger and the NUMA stuff
> doesn't use that.
> 

Ah, so this is a red herring?

> > > +	if (unlikely((unsigned)nid >= MAX_NUMNODES))
> > > +		goto again;
> > > +
> > 
> > MAX_NUMNODES is unrelated to anything except that it might prevent a crash
> > and even then nr_online_nodes is probably what you wanted and even that
> > assumes the NUMA node numbering is contiguous. 
> 
> I used whatever nodemask.h did to detect end-of-bitmap and they use
> MAX_NUMNODES. See __next_node() and for_each_node() like.
> 

The check does prevent us going off the end of the bitmap but does not
necessarily return an online node.

> MAX_NUMNODES doesn't assume contiguous numbers since its the actual size
> of the bitmap, nr_online_nodes would hoever.
> 

I intended to say nr_node_ids, the same size as buffers such as the
task_numa_buffers. If we ever return a nid > nr_node_ids here then
task_numa_fault would corrupt memory. However, it should be possible for
node_weight to exceed nr_node_ids except maybe during node hot-remove so
it's not the problem.

> > The real concern is whether
> > the updated mask is an allowed target for the updated memory policy. If
> > it's not then "nid" can be pointing off the deep end somewhere.  With this
> > conversion to a for loop there is race after you check nnodes where target
> > gets set to 0 and then return a nid of -1 which I suppose will just blow
> > up differently but it's fixable.
> 
> But but but, I did i <= target, which will match when target == 0 so
> you'll get at least a single iteration and nid will be set.
> 

True.

> > This? Untested. Fixes implicit types while it's there. Note the use of
> > first node and (c < target) to guarantee nid gets set and that the first
> > potential node is still used as an interleave target.
> > 
> > diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
> > index 7431001..ae880c3 100644
> > --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
> > +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> > @@ -1755,22 +1755,24 @@ unsigned slab_node(void)
> >  }
> >  
> >  /* Do static interleaving for a VMA with known offset. */
> > -static unsigned offset_il_node(struct mempolicy *pol,
> > +static unsigned int offset_il_node(struct mempolicy *pol,
> >  		struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long off)
> >  {
> > -	unsigned nnodes = nodes_weight(pol->v.nodes);
> > -	unsigned target;
> > -	int c;
> > -	int nid = -1;
> > +	unsigned int nr_nodes, target;
> > +	int i, nid;
> >  
> > -	if (!nnodes)
> > +again:
> > +	nr_nodes = nodes_weight(pol->v.nodes);
> > +	if (!nr_nodes)
> >  		return numa_node_id();
> > -	target = (unsigned int)off % nnodes;
> > -	c = 0;
> > -	do {
> > +	target = (unsigned int)off % nr_nodes;
> > +	for (i = 0, nid = first_node(pol->v.nodes); i < target; i++)
> >  		nid = next_node(nid, pol->v.nodes);
> > -		c++;
> > -	} while (c <= target);
> > +
> > +	/* Policy nodemask can potentially update in parallel */
> > +	if (unlikely(!node_isset(nid, pol->v.nodes)))
> > +		goto again;
> > +
> >  	return nid;
> >  }
> 
> So I explicitly didn't use the node_isset() test because that's more
> likely to trigger than the nid >= MAX_NUMNODES test. Its fine to return
> a node that isn't actually part of the mask anymore -- a race is a race
> anyway.

Yeah and as long as it's < nr_node_ids it should be ok within the task
numa fault handling as well.

-- 
Mel Gorman
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/