linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/6] memcg, slab: check and init memcg_cahes under slab

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: <52B2BAAA.40801@parallels.com>
Date:	Thu, 19 Dec 2013 13:21:46 +0400
From:	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
CC:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...il.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	<cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, <devel@...nvz.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] memcg, slab: check and init memcg_cahes under slab_mutex

Hi, Christoph

We have a problem with memcg-vs-slab interactions. Currently we set the
pointer to a new kmem_cache in its parent's memcg_caches array inside
memcg_create_kmem_cache() (mm/memcontrol.c):

memcg_create_kmem_cache():
    new_cachep = cache_from_memcg_idx(cachep, idx);
    if (new_cachep)
        goto out;
    new_cachep = kmem_cache_dup(memcg, cachep);
    cachep->memcg_params->memcg_caches[idx] = new_cachep;

It seems to be prone to a race as explained in the comment to this
patch. To fix the race, we need to move the assignment of new_cachep to
memcg_caches[idx] to be called under the slab_mutex protection.

There are basically two ways of doing this:

1. Move the assignment to kmem_cache_create_memcg() defined in
mm/slab.c. This is how this patch handles it.
2. Move taking of the slab_mutex, along with some memcg-specific
initialization bits, from kmem_cache_create_memcg() to
memcg_create_kmem_cache().

The second way, although looks clearer, will break the convention not to
take the slab_mutex inside mm/memcontrol.c, Glauber tried to observe
while implementing kmemcg.

So the question is: what do you think about taking the slab_mutex
directly from mm/memcontrol.c w/o using helper functions (confusing call
paths, IMO)?

Thanks.

On 12/19/2013 12:00 PM, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Vladimir Davydov
> <vdavydov@...allels.com> wrote:
>> On 12/18/2013 09:41 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Wed 18-12-13 17:16:55, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
>>>> The memcg_params::memcg_caches array can be updated concurrently from
>>>> memcg_update_cache_size() and memcg_create_kmem_cache(). Although both
>>>> of these functions take the slab_mutex during their operation, the
>>>> latter checks if memcg's cache has already been allocated w/o taking the
>>>> mutex. This can result in a race as described below.
>>>>
>>>> Asume two threads schedule kmem_cache creation works for the same
>>>> kmem_cache of the same memcg from __memcg_kmem_get_cache(). One of the
>>>> works successfully creates it. Another work should fail then, but if it
>>>> interleaves with memcg_update_cache_size() as follows, it does not:
>>> I am not sure I understand the race. memcg_update_cache_size is called
>>> when we start accounting a new memcg or a child is created and it
>>> inherits accounting from the parent. memcg_create_kmem_cache is called
>>> when a new cache is first allocated from, right?
>> memcg_update_cache_size() is called when kmem accounting is activated
>> for a memcg, no matter how.
>>
>> memcg_create_kmem_cache() is scheduled from __memcg_kmem_get_cache().
>> It's OK to have a bunch of such methods trying to create the same memcg
>> cache concurrently, but only one of them should succeed.
>>
>>> Why cannot we simply take slab_mutex inside memcg_create_kmem_cache?
>>> it is running from the workqueue context so it should clash with other
>>> locks.
>> Hmm, Glauber's code never takes the slab_mutex inside memcontrol.c. I
>> have always been wondering why, because it could simplify flow paths
>> significantly (e.g. update_cache_sizes() -> update_all_caches() ->
>> update_cache_size() - from memcontrol.c to slab_common.c and back again
>> just to take the mutex).
>>
> Because that is a layering violation and exposes implementation
> details of the slab to
> the outside world. I agree this would make things a lot simpler, but
> please check with Christoph
> if this is acceptable before going forward.
--
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/