linux-kernel - Re: mmotm 2015-01-22-15-04: qemu failure due to 'mm: memcontrol: remove unnecessary soft limit tree node test'

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:	Tue, 27 Jan 2015 18:24:39 +0100
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	mm-commits@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: mmotm 2015-01-22-15-04: qemu failure due to 'mm: memcontrol:
 remove unnecessary soft limit tree node test'

On Fri 23-01-15 09:17:44, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2015, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> 
> > Is the assumption of this patch wrong?  Does the specified node have
> > to be online for the fallback to work?

Admittedly, I was checking only SLAB allocator when reviewing and
assuming SLUB would behave in the same way :/
But maybe I have misinterpreted the slab code as well and
get_node(struct kmem_cache *, int node) returns non-NULL for !online
nodes.

> Nodes that are offline have no control structures allocated and thus
> allocations will likely segfault when the address of the controls
> structure for the node is accessed.
> 
> If we wanted to prevent that then every allocation would have to add a
> check to see if the nodes are online which would impact performance.

I have briefly checked the code and it seems that many users are aware
of this and use the same construct Johannes used in the end or they use
cpu_to_node. But then there are other users doing:
net/openvswitch/flow_table.c:
        /* Initialize the default stat node. */
        stats = kmem_cache_alloc_node(flow_stats_cache,
                                      GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO, 0);

and this can blow up if Node0 is not online. I haven't checked other
callers but are we sure they all are aware of !online nodes? E.g.
dev_to_node() will return a node which is assigned to a device. I do not
see where exactly this is set to anything else than -1 (I got quickly
lost in set_dev_node callers). E.g. PCI bus sets its affinity from
bus->sysdata which seems to be initialized in pci_acpi_scan_root and
that is checking for an online node. Is it possible that some devices
will get the node from BIOS or by other means?

That being said I have no problem with checking node_online in the memcg
code which was reported to blow up here. I am just thinking whether it
is safe to simply blow up like that.
-- 
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/