linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 8/8] memcg: get rid of mem_cgroup_from

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: <20150709163334.GI13872@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:	Thu, 9 Jul 2015 18:33:34 +0200
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>
Cc:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] memcg: get rid of mem_cgroup_from_task

On Thu 09-07-15 17:32:47, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 04:13:21PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 08-07-15 20:43:31, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 02:27:52PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > @@ -1091,12 +1079,14 @@ bool task_in_mem_cgroup(struct task_struct *task, struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> > > >  		task_unlock(p);
> > > >  	} else {
> > > >  		/*
> > > > -		 * All threads may have already detached their mm's, but the oom
> > > > -		 * killer still needs to detect if they have already been oom
> > > > -		 * killed to prevent needlessly killing additional tasks.
> > > > +		 * All threads have already detached their mm's but we should
> > > > +		 * still be able to at least guess the original memcg from the
> > > > +		 * task_css. These two will match most of the time but there are
> > > > +		 * corner cases where task->mm and task_css refer to a different
> > > > +		 * cgroups.
> > > >  		 */
> > > >  		rcu_read_lock();
> > > > -		task_memcg = mem_cgroup_from_task(task);
> > > > +		task_memcg = mem_cgroup_from_css(task_css(task, memory_cgrp_id));
> > > >  		css_get(&task_memcg->css);
> > > 
> > > I wonder why it's safe to call css_get here.
> > 
> > What do you mean by safe? Memcg cannot go away because we are under rcu
> > lock.
> 
> No, it can't, but css->refcnt can reach zero while we are here, can't
> it? If it happens, css->refcnt.release will be called twice, which will
> have very bad consequences. I think it's OK to call css_tryget{_online}
> from an RCU read-side section, but not css_get. Am I missing something?

OK, now I see what you mean. This is a good question indeed. This code has been
like that for quite a while and I took it for granted. I have to think
about it some more. Anyway the patch doesn't change the behavior here.
-- 
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/