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: <20170518132033.GA12219@castle>
Date:   Thu, 18 May 2017 14:20:33 +0100
From:   Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
CC:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
        <hannes@...xchg.org>, <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        <kernel-team@...com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,oom: fix oom invocation issues

On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 11:00:39AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 18-05-17 10:47:29, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > 
> > Hmm, I guess you are right. I haven't realized that pagefault_out_of_memory
> > can race and pick up another victim. For some reason I thought that the
> > page fault would break out on fatal signal pending but we don't do that (we
> > used to in the past). Now that I think about that more we should
> > probably remove out_of_memory out of pagefault_out_of_memory completely.
> > It is racy and it basically doesn't have any allocation context so we
> > might kill a task from a different domain. So can we do this instead?
> > There is a slight risk that somebody might have returned VM_FAULT_OOM
> > without doing an allocation but from my quick look nobody does that
> > currently.
> 
> If this is considered too risky then we can do what Roman was proposing
> and check tsk_is_oom_victim in pagefault_out_of_memory and bail out.

Hi, Michal!

If we consider this approach, I've prepared a separate patch for this problem
(stripped all oom reaper list stuff).

Thanks!

>From 317fad44a0fe79fb76e8e4fd6bd81c52ae1712e9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 21:19:56 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] mm,oom: prevent OOM double kill from a pagefault handling
 path

During the debugging of some OOM-related stuff, I've noticed
that sometimes OOM kills two processes instead of one.

The problem can be easily reproduced on a vanilla kernel:

[   25.721494] allocate invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x14280ca(GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE|__GFP_ZERO), nodemask=(null),  order=0, oom_score_adj=0
[   25.725658] allocate cpuset=/ mems_allowed=0
[   25.727033] CPU: 1 PID: 492 Comm: allocate Not tainted 4.12.0-rc1-mm1+ #181
[   25.729215] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS Ubuntu-1.8.2-1ubuntu1 04/01/2014
[   25.729598] Call Trace:
[   25.729598]  dump_stack+0x63/0x82
[   25.729598]  dump_header+0x97/0x21a
[   25.729598]  ? do_try_to_free_pages+0x2d7/0x360
[   25.729598]  ? security_capable_noaudit+0x45/0x60
[   25.729598]  oom_kill_process+0x219/0x3e0
[   25.729598]  out_of_memory+0x11d/0x480
[   25.729598]  __alloc_pages_slowpath+0xc84/0xd40
[   25.729598]  __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x245/0x260
[   25.729598]  alloc_pages_vma+0xa2/0x270
[   25.729598]  __handle_mm_fault+0xca9/0x10c0
[   25.729598]  handle_mm_fault+0xf3/0x210
[   25.729598]  __do_page_fault+0x240/0x4e0
[   25.729598]  trace_do_page_fault+0x37/0xe0
[   25.729598]  do_async_page_fault+0x19/0x70
[   25.729598]  async_page_fault+0x28/0x30
< cut >
[   25.810868] oom_reaper: reaped process 492 (allocate), now anon-rss:0kB, file-rss:0kB, shmem-rss:0kB
< cut >
[   25.817589] allocate invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x0(), nodemask=(null),  order=0, oom_score_adj=0
[   25.818821] allocate cpuset=/ mems_allowed=0
[   25.819259] CPU: 1 PID: 492 Comm: allocate Not tainted 4.12.0-rc1-mm1+ #181
[   25.819847] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS Ubuntu-1.8.2-1ubuntu1 04/01/2014
[   25.820549] Call Trace:
[   25.820733]  dump_stack+0x63/0x82
[   25.820961]  dump_header+0x97/0x21a
[   25.820961]  ? security_capable_noaudit+0x45/0x60
[   25.820961]  oom_kill_process+0x219/0x3e0
[   25.820961]  out_of_memory+0x11d/0x480
[   25.820961]  pagefault_out_of_memory+0x68/0x80
[   25.820961]  mm_fault_error+0x8f/0x190
[   25.820961]  ? handle_mm_fault+0xf3/0x210
[   25.820961]  __do_page_fault+0x4b2/0x4e0
[   25.820961]  trace_do_page_fault+0x37/0xe0
[   25.820961]  do_async_page_fault+0x19/0x70
[   25.820961]  async_page_fault+0x28/0x30
< cut >
[   25.863078] Out of memory: Kill process 233 (firewalld) score 10 or sacrifice child
[   25.863634] Killed process 233 (firewalld) total-vm:246076kB, anon-rss:20956kB, file-rss:0kB, shmem-rss:0kB

This actually happens if pagefault_out_of_memory() is called
after the calling process has already been selected as an OOM victim
and killed. There is a race with the oom reaper: if the process
is reaped before it enters out_of_memory(), the MMF_OOM_SKIP
flag is set, and out_of_memory() will not consider the process
as a eligible victim. That means that another victim will be selected
and killed.

Tetsuo Handa has noticed, that this is a side effect of
commit 9a67f6488eca926f ("mm: consolidate GFP_NOFAIL checks
in the allocator slowpath").

To avoid this, out_of_memory() shouldn't be called from
pagefault_out_of_memory(), if current task already
has been chosen as an oom victim.

v2: dropped changes related to the oom_reaper synchronization,
    as it looks like a separate and minor issue;
    rebased on new mm;
    renamed, updated commit message.

Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>
Cc: kernel-team@...com
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
---
 mm/oom_kill.c | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
index 04c9143..9c643a3 100644
--- a/mm/oom_kill.c
+++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
@@ -1068,6 +1068,9 @@ void pagefault_out_of_memory(void)
 	if (mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize(true))
 		return;
 
+	if (tsk_is_oom_victim(current))
+		return;
+
 	if (!mutex_trylock(&oom_lock))
 		return;
 	out_of_memory(&oc);
-- 
2.7.4

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ