linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mm: Uncharge poisoned pages

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: <3eb86373-dafc-6db9-82cd-84eb9e8b0d37@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:17:34 +0200
From:   Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:     Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mm: Uncharge poisoned pages

On 28/04/2017 09:31, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [CC Johannes and Vladimir - the patch is
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1493130472-22843-2-git-send-email-ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
> 
> On Fri 28-04-17 08:07:55, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Thu 27-04-17 13:51:23, Andi Kleen wrote:
>>> Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Tue 25-04-17 16:27:51, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>>>>> When page are poisoned, they should be uncharged from the root memory
>>>>> cgroup.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is required to avoid a BUG raised when the page is onlined back:
>>>>> BUG: Bad page state in process mem-on-off-test  pfn:7ae3b
>>>>> page:f000000001eb8ec0 count:0 mapcount:0 mapping:          (null)
>>>>> index:0x1
>>>>> flags: 0x3ffff800200000(hwpoison)
>>>>
>>>> My knowledge of memory poisoning is very rudimentary but aren't those
>>>> pages supposed to leak and never come back? In other words isn't the
>>>> hoplug code broken because it should leave them alone?
>>>
>>> Yes that would be the right interpretation. If it was really offlined
>>> due to a hardware error the memory will be poisoned and any access
>>> could cause a machine check.
>>
>> OK, thanks for the clarification. Then I am not sure the patch is
>> correct. Why do we need to uncharge that page at all?
> 
> Now, I have realized that we actually want to uncharge that page because
> it will pin the memcg and we do not want to have that memcg and its
> whole hierarchy pinned as well. This used to work before the charge
> rework 0a31bc97c80c ("mm: memcontrol: rewrite uncharge API") I guess
> because we used to uncharge on page cache removal.
> 
> I do not think the patch is correct, though. memcg_kmem_enabled() will
> check whether kmem accounting is enabled and we are talking about page
> cache pages here. You should be using mem_cgroup_uncharge instead.

Thanks for the review Michal.

I was not comfortable either with this patch.

I did some tests calling mem_cgroup_uncharge() when isolate_lru_page()
succeeds only, so not calling it if isolate_lru_page() failed.

This seems to work as well, so if everyone agree on that, I'll send a
new version soon.

Cheers,
Laurent.