linux-kernel - Re: memcg oops: memcg_kmem_charge_memcg()->try_charge()->page_counter_try

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:   Mon, 29 Oct 2018 21:47:58 +0000
From:   Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
CC:     Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>
Subject: Re: memcg oops:
 memcg_kmem_charge_memcg()->try_charge()->page_counter_try_charge()->BOOM

On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 09:26:34PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 29-10-18 18:54:19, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 05:35:38PM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2018-10-29 at 14:20 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > [    4.420976] Code: f3 c3 0f 1f 00 0f 1f 44 00 00 48 85 ff 0f 84 a8 00 00 00 41 56 48 89 f8 41 55 49 89 fe 41 54 49 89 d5 55 49 89 f4 53 48 89 f3 <f0> 48 0f c1 1f 48 01 f3 48 39 5f 18 48 89 fd 73 17 eb 41 48 89 e8
> > > > > [    4.424162] RSP: 0018:ffffb27840c57cb0 EFLAGS: 00010202
> > > > > [    4.425236] RAX: 00000000000000f8 RBX: 0000000000000020 RCX: 0000000000000200
> > > > > [    4.426467] RDX: ffffb27840c57d08 RSI: 0000000000000020 RDI: 00000000000000f8
> > > > > [    4.427652] RBP: 0000000000000001 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffffb278410bc000
> > > > > [    4.428883] R10: ffffb27840c57ed0 R11: 0000000000000040 R12: 0000000000000020
> > > > > [    4.430168] R13: ffffb27840c57d08 R14: 00000000000000f8 R15: 00000000006000c0
> > > > > [    4.431411] FS:  00007f79081a3940(0000) GS:ffff92a4b7bc0000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> > > > > [    4.432748] CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> > > > > [    4.433836] CR2: 00000000000000f8 CR3: 00000002310ac002 CR4: 00000000001606e0
> > > > > [    4.435500] Call Trace:
> > > > > [    4.436319]  try_charge+0x92/0x7b0
> > > > > [    4.437284]  ? unlazy_walk+0x4c/0xb0
> > > > > [    4.438676]  ? terminate_walk+0x91/0x100
> > > > > [    4.439984]  memcg_kmem_charge_memcg+0x28/0x80
> > > > > [    4.441059]  memcg_kmem_charge+0x88/0x1d0
> > > > > [    4.442105]  copy_process.part.37+0x23a/0x2070
> > > > 
> > > > Could you faddr2line this please?
> > > 
> > > homer:/usr/local/src/kernel/linux-master # ./scripts/faddr2line vmlinux copy_process.part.37+0x23a
> > > copy_process.part.37+0x23a/0x2070:
> > > memcg_charge_kernel_stack at kernel/fork.c:401
> > > (inlined by) dup_task_struct at kernel/fork.c:850
> > > (inlined by) copy_process at kernel/fork.c:1750
> > > 
> > > I bisected it this afternoon, and confirmed the result via revert.
> > > 
> > > 9b6f7e163cd0f468d1b9696b785659d3c27c8667 is the first bad commit
> > > commit 9b6f7e163cd0f468d1b9696b785659d3c27c8667
> > > Author: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
> > > Date:   Fri Oct 26 15:03:19 2018 -0700
> > > 
> > >     mm: rework memcg kernel stack accounting
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Mike!
> > 
> > Thank you for the report!
> > 
> > Do you see it reliable every time you boot up the machine?
> > How do you run kvm? Is there something special about your cgroup setup?
> > 
> > I've made several attempts to reproduce the issue, but haven't got anything
> > so far. I've used your config, and played with different cgroups setups.
> > 
> > Do you know where in the page_counter_try_charge() it fails?
> > 
> > Also, can you, please, check if the following patch mitigates the problem?
> 
> It's been a long day so I might be completely wrong but it seems that
> the task_struct is not initialized yet so tsk->mm is a complete garbage.
> I guess you want to move charging down after arch_dup_task_struct.

We take the memcg pointer from current, not from the new task.
So it's not the problem.
Anyway, I've found the problem, will send the fix in few minutes.

Thanks!