linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 1/6] mm, page_alloc: fix more premature OOM due to race with cpuset update

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:   Wed, 12 Apr 2017 16:25:32 -0500 (CDT)
From:   Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/6] mm, page_alloc: fix more premature OOM due to race
 with cpuset update

On Tue, 11 Apr 2017, Vlastimil Babka wrote:

> > The fallback was only intended for a cpuset on which boundaries are not enforced
> > in critical conditions (softwall). A hardwall cpuset (CS_MEM_HARDWALL)
> > should fail the allocation.
>
> Hmm just to clarify - I'm talking about ignoring the *mempolicy's* nodemask on
> the basis of cpuset having higher priority, while you seem to be talking about
> ignoring a (softwall) cpuset nodemask, right? man set_mempolicy says "... if
> required nodemask contains no nodes that are allowed by the process's current
> cpuset context, the memory  policy reverts to local allocation" which does come
> down to ignoring mempolicy's nodemask.

I am talking of allocating outside of the current allowed nodes
(determined by mempolicy -- MPOL_BIND is the only concern as far as I can
tell -- as well as the current cpuset). One can violate the cpuset if its not
a hardwall but  the MPOL_MBIND node restriction cannot be violated.

Those allocations are also not allowed if the allocation was for a user
space page even if this is a softwall cpuset.

> >> This patch fixes the issue by having __alloc_pages_slowpath() check for empty
> >> intersection of cpuset and ac->nodemask before OOM or allocation failure. If
> >> it's indeed empty, the nodemask is ignored and allocation retried, which mimics
> >> node_zonelist(). This works fine, because almost all callers of
> >
> > Well that would need to be subject to the hardwall flag. Allocation needs
> > to fail for a hardwall cpuset.
>
> They still do, if no hardwall cpuset node can satisfy the allocation with
> mempolicy ignored.

If the memory policy is MPOL_MBIND then allocations outside of the given
nodes should fail. They can violate the cpuset boundaries only if they are
kernel allocations and we are not in a hardwall cpuset.

That was at least my understand when working on this code years ago.