linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.5 139/238] mm: memcontrol: reclaim and OOM kill when shrinking memory.max below usage

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: <20160410183504.214693546@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:	Sun, 10 Apr 2016 11:35:16 -0700
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...tuozzo.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: [PATCH 4.5 139/238] mm: memcontrol: reclaim and OOM kill when shrinking memory.max below usage

4.5-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>

commit b6e6edcfa40561e9c8abe5eecf1c96f8e5fd9c6f upstream.

Setting the original memory.limit_in_bytes hardlimit is subject to a
race condition when the desired value is below the current usage.  The
code tries a few times to first reclaim and then see if the usage has
dropped to where we would like it to be, but there is no locking, and
the workload is free to continue making new charges up to the old limit.
Thus, attempting to shrink a workload relies on pure luck and hope that
the workload happens to cooperate.

To fix this in the cgroup2 memory.max knob, do it the other way round:
set the limit first, then try enforcement.  And if reclaim is not able
to succeed, trigger OOM kills in the group.  Keep going until the new
limit is met, we run out of OOM victims and there's only unreclaimable
memory left, or the task writing to memory.max is killed.  This allows
users to shrink groups reliably, and the behavior is consistent with
what happens when new charges are attempted in excess of memory.max.

Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...tuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 Documentation/cgroup-v2.txt |    6 ++++++
 mm/memcontrol.c             |   38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
 2 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

--- a/Documentation/cgroup-v2.txt
+++ b/Documentation/cgroup-v2.txt
@@ -1368,6 +1368,12 @@ system than killing the group.  Otherwis
 limit this type of spillover and ultimately contain buggy or even
 malicious applications.
 
+Setting the original memory.limit_in_bytes below the current usage was
+subject to a race condition, where concurrent charges could cause the
+limit setting to fail. memory.max on the other hand will first set the
+limit to prevent new charges, and then reclaim and OOM kill until the
+new limit is met - or the task writing to memory.max is killed.
+
 The combined memory+swap accounting and limiting is replaced by real
 control over swap space.
 
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -1262,7 +1262,7 @@ static unsigned long mem_cgroup_get_limi
 	return limit;
 }
 
-static void mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
+static bool mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
 				     int order)
 {
 	struct oom_control oc = {
@@ -1340,6 +1340,7 @@ static void mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(str
 	}
 unlock:
 	mutex_unlock(&oom_lock);
+	return chosen;
 }
 
 #if MAX_NUMNODES > 1
@@ -5088,6 +5089,8 @@ static ssize_t memory_max_write(struct k
 				char *buf, size_t nbytes, loff_t off)
 {
 	struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_css(of_css(of));
+	unsigned int nr_reclaims = MEM_CGROUP_RECLAIM_RETRIES;
+	bool drained = false;
 	unsigned long max;
 	int err;
 
@@ -5096,9 +5099,36 @@ static ssize_t memory_max_write(struct k
 	if (err)
 		return err;
 
-	err = mem_cgroup_resize_limit(memcg, max);
-	if (err)
-		return err;
+	xchg(&memcg->memory.limit, max);
+
+	for (;;) {
+		unsigned long nr_pages = page_counter_read(&memcg->memory);
+
+		if (nr_pages <= max)
+			break;
+
+		if (signal_pending(current)) {
+			err = -EINTR;
+			break;
+		}
+
+		if (!drained) {
+			drain_all_stock(memcg);
+			drained = true;
+			continue;
+		}
+
+		if (nr_reclaims) {
+			if (!try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(memcg, nr_pages - max,
+							  GFP_KERNEL, true))
+				nr_reclaims--;
+			continue;
+		}
+
+		mem_cgroup_events(memcg, MEMCG_OOM, 1);
+		if (!mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(memcg, GFP_KERNEL, 0))
+			break;
+	}
 
 	memcg_wb_domain_size_changed(memcg);
 	return nbytes;