| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 16:54:25 -0400
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg, oom: be careful about races when warning about no
reclaimable task
On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 10:23:32PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 07-08-18 16:02:47, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 09:25:53AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> > >
> > > "memcg, oom: move out_of_memory back to the charge path" has added a
> > > warning triggered when the oom killer cannot find any eligible task
> > > and so there is no way to reclaim the oom memcg under its hard limit.
> > > Further charges for such a memcg are forced and therefore the hard limit
> > > isolation is weakened.
> > >
> > > The current warning is however too eager to trigger even when we are not
> > > really hitting the above condition. Syzbot[1] and Greg Thelen have noticed
> > > that we can hit this condition even when there is still oom victim
> > > pending. E.g. the following race is possible:
> > >
> > > memcg has two tasks taskA, taskB.
> > >
> > > CPU1 (taskA) CPU2 CPU3 (taskB)
> > > try_charge
> > > mem_cgroup_out_of_memory try_charge
> > > select_bad_process(taskB)
> > > oom_kill_process oom_reap_task
> > > # No real memory reaped
> > > mem_cgroup_out_of_memory
> > > # set taskB -> MMF_OOM_SKIP
> > > # retry charge
> > > mem_cgroup_out_of_memory
> > > oom_lock oom_lock
> > > select_bad_process(self)
> > > oom_kill_process(self)
> > > oom_unlock
> > > # no eligible task
> > >
> > > In fact syzbot test triggered this situation by placing multiple tasks
> > > into a memcg with hard limit set to 0. So no task really had any memory
> > > charged to the memcg
> > >
> > > : Memory cgroup stats for /ile0: cache:0KB rss:0KB rss_huge:0KB shmem:0KB mapped_file:0KB dirty:0KB writeback:0KB swap:0KB inactive_anon:0KB active_anon:0KB inactive_file:0KB active_file:0KB unevictable:0KB
> > > : Tasks state (memory values in pages):
> > > : [ pid ] uid tgid total_vm rss pgtables_bytes swapents oom_score_adj name
> > > : [ 6569] 0 6562 9427 1 53248 0 0 syz-executor0
> > > : [ 6576] 0 6576 9426 0 61440 0 0 syz-executor6
> > > : [ 6578] 0 6578 9426 534 61440 0 0 syz-executor4
> > > : [ 6579] 0 6579 9426 0 57344 0 0 syz-executor5
> > > : [ 6582] 0 6582 9426 0 61440 0 0 syz-executor7
> > > : [ 6584] 0 6584 9426 0 57344 0 0 syz-executor1
> > >
> > > so in principle there is indeed nothing reclaimable in this memcg and
> > > this looks like a misconfiguration. On the other hand we can clearly
> > > kill all those tasks so it is a bit early to warn and scare users. Do
> > > that by checking that the current is the oom victim and bypass the
> > > warning then. The victim is allowed to force charge and terminate to
> > > release its temporal charge along the way.
> > >
> > > [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/0000000000005e979605729c1564@google.com
> > > Fixes: "memcg, oom: move out_of_memory back to the charge path"
> > > Noticed-by: Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>
> > > Reported-and-tested-by: syzbot+bab151e82a4e973fa325@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> > > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> > > ---
> > > mm/memcontrol.c | 3 ++-
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > index 4603ad75c9a9..1b6eed1bc404 100644
> > > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > @@ -1703,7 +1703,8 @@ static enum oom_status mem_cgroup_oom(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t mask, int
> > > return OOM_ASYNC;
> > > }
> > >
> > > - if (mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(memcg, mask, order))
> > > + if (mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(memcg, mask, order) ||
> > > + tsk_is_oom_victim(current))
> > > return OOM_SUCCESS;
> > >
> > > WARN(1,"Memory cgroup charge failed because of no reclaimable memory! "
> >
> > This is really ugly. :(
> >
> > If that check is only there to suppress the warning when the limit is
> > 0, this should really be a separate branch around the warning, with a
> > fat comment that this is a ridiculous cornercase, and not look like it
> > is an essential part of the memcg reclaim/oom process.
>
> I do not mind having it in a separate branch. Btw. this is not just about
> hard limit set to 0. Similar can happen anytime we are getting out of
> oom victims. The likelihood goes up with the remote memcg charging
> merged recently.
What the global OOM killer does in that situation is dump the header
anyway:
/* Found nothing?!?! Either we hang forever, or we panic. */
if (!oc->chosen && !is_sysrq_oom(oc) && !is_memcg_oom(oc)) {
dump_header(oc, NULL);
panic("Out of memory and no killable processes...\n");
}
I think that would make sense here as well - without the panic,
obviously, but we can add our own pr_err() line following the header.
That gives us the exact memory situation of the cgroup and who is
trying to allocate and from what context, but in a format that is
known to users without claiming right away that it's a kernel issue.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists