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  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, 8 Aug 2018 08:44:14 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.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 07-08-18 16:54:25, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> 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.

I was considering doing that initially but then decided that warning is
less noisy and still a good "let us know" trigger. It doesn't give us
the whole picture which is obviously a downside but we would at least
know that something is going south one have the trace to who that might
be should this be a bug rather than a misconfiguration.

But I do not mind doing dump_header as well. Care to send a patch?

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

Powered by blists - more mailing lists