linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] blkcg: allocate struct blkcg

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: <5b9ab59c-4121-d49a-1dc5-bd419f3ac94f@kernel.dk>
Date:   Fri, 24 Mar 2017 16:04:32 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@...gle.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-block@...r.kernel.org, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blkcg: allocate struct blkcg_gq outside request queue
 spinlock

On 03/24/2017 03:56 PM, Tahsin Erdogan wrote:
> blkg_conf_prep() currently calls blkg_lookup_create() while holding
> request queue spinlock. This means allocating memory for struct
> blkcg_gq has to be made non-blocking. This causes occasional -ENOMEM
> failures in call paths like below:
> 
>   pcpu_alloc+0x68f/0x710
>   __alloc_percpu_gfp+0xd/0x10
>   __percpu_counter_init+0x55/0xc0
>   cfq_pd_alloc+0x3b2/0x4e0
>   blkg_alloc+0x187/0x230
>   blkg_create+0x489/0x670
>   blkg_lookup_create+0x9a/0x230
>   blkg_conf_prep+0x1fb/0x240
>   __cfqg_set_weight_device.isra.105+0x5c/0x180
>   cfq_set_weight_on_dfl+0x69/0xc0
>   cgroup_file_write+0x39/0x1c0
>   kernfs_fop_write+0x13f/0x1d0
>   __vfs_write+0x23/0x120
>   vfs_write+0xc2/0x1f0
>   SyS_write+0x44/0xb0
>   entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x18/0xad
> 
> In the code path above, percpu allocator cannot call vmalloc() due to
> queue spinlock.
> 
> A failure in this call path gives grief to tools which are trying to
> configure io weights. We see occasional failures happen shortly after
> reboots even when system is not under any memory pressure. Machines
> with a lot of cpus are more vulnerable to this condition.
> 
> Do struct blkcg_gq allocations outside the queue spinlock to allow
> blocking during memory allocations.

This looks much simpler/cleaner to me, compared to v5. Tejun, what do
you think?

-- 
Jens Axboe