linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/6] mm, oom: fortify task_will_free

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: <20160530173505.GA25287@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 30 May 2016 19:35:05 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] mm, oom: fortify task_will_free_mem

On 05/30, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> task_will_free_mem is rather weak.

I was thinking about the similar change because I noticed that try_oom_reaper()
is very, very wrong.

To the point I think that we need another change for stable which simply removes
spin_lock_irq(sighand->siglock) from try_oom_reaper(). It buys nothing, we can
check signal_group_exit() (which is wrong too ;) lockless, and at the same time
the kernel can crash because we can hit ->siglock == NULL.

So I do think this change is good in general.

I think that task_will_free_mem() should be un-inlined, and __task_will_free_mem()
should go into mm/oom-kill.c... but this is minor.

> -static inline bool task_will_free_mem(struct task_struct *task)
> +static inline bool __task_will_free_mem(struct task_struct *task)
>  {
>  	struct signal_struct *sig = task->signal;
>  
> @@ -119,16 +119,69 @@ static inline bool task_will_free_mem(struct task_struct *task)
>  	if (sig->flags & SIGNAL_GROUP_COREDUMP)
>  		return false;
>  
> -	if (!(task->flags & PF_EXITING))
> +	if (!(task->flags & PF_EXITING || fatal_signal_pending(task)))
>  		return false;
>  
>  	/* Make sure that the whole thread group is going down */
> -	if (!thread_group_empty(task) && !(sig->flags & SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT))
> +	if (!thread_group_empty(task) &&
> +		!(sig->flags & SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT || fatal_signal_pending(task)))
>  		return false;
>  
>  	return true;
>  }

Well, let me suggest this again. I think it should do

	if (SIGNAL_GROUP_COREDUMP)
		return false;

	if (SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT)
		return true;

	if (thread_group_empty() && PF_EXITING)
		return true;

	return false;

we do not need fatal_signal_pending(), in this case SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT should
be set (ignoring some bugs with sub-namespaces which we need to fix anyway).

At the same time, we do not want to return false if PF_EXITING is not set
if SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT is set.

> +static inline bool task_will_free_mem(struct task_struct *task)
> +{
> +	struct mm_struct *mm = NULL;
> +	struct task_struct *p;
> +	bool ret;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * If the process has passed exit_mm we have to skip it because
> +	 * we have lost a link to other tasks sharing this mm, we do not
> +	 * have anything to reap and the task might then get stuck waiting
> +	 * for parent as zombie and we do not want it to hold TIF_MEMDIE
> +	 */
> +	p = find_lock_task_mm(task);
> +	if (!p)
> +		return false;
> +
> +	if (!__task_will_free_mem(p)) {
> +		task_unlock(p);
> +		return false;
> +	}
> +
> +	mm = p->mm;
> +	if (atomic_read(&mm->mm_users) <= 1) {

this is sub-optimal, we should probably take signal->live or ->nr_threads
into account... but OK, we can do this later.

> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	for_each_process(p) {
> +		ret = __task_will_free_mem(p);
> +		if (!ret)
> +			break;
> +	}
> +	rcu_read_unlock();

Yes, I agree very much.

But it seems you forgot to add the process_shares_mm() check into this loop?

and perhaps it also makes sense to add

	if (same_thread_group(tsk, p))
		continue;

This should not really matter, we know that __task_will_free_mem(p) should return
true. Just to make it more clear.

And. I think this needs smp_rmb() at the end of the loop (assuming we have the
process_shares_mm() check here). We need it to ensure that we read p->mm before
we read next_task(), to avoid the race with exit() + clone(CLONE_VM).

Oleg.