linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: handle no memcg case in memcg_kmem

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: <20181030061249.GS32673@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 30 Oct 2018 07:12:49 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Cc:     "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: handle no memcg case in memcg_kmem_charge() properly

On Mon 29-10-18 21:51:55, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> Mike Galbraith reported a regression caused by the commit 9b6f7e163cd0
> ("mm: rework memcg kernel stack accounting") on a system with
> "cgroup_disable=memory" boot option: the system panics with the
> following stack trace:
> 
>   [0.928542] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 00000000000000f8
>   [0.929317] PGD 0 P4D 0
>   [0.929573] Oops: 0002 [#1] PREEMPT SMP PTI
>   [0.929984] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: systemd Not tainted 4.19.0-preempt+ #410
>   [0.930637] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS ?-20180531_142017-buildhw-08.phx2.fed4
>   [0.931862] RIP: 0010:page_counter_try_charge+0x22/0xc0
>   [0.932376] Code: 41 5d c3 c3 0f 1f 40 00 0f 1f 44 00 00 48 85 ff 0f 84 a7 00 00 00 41 56 48 89 f8 49 89 fe 49
>   [0.934283] RSP: 0018:ffffacf68031fcb8 EFLAGS: 00010202
>   [0.934826] RAX: 00000000000000f8 RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: 0000000000000000
>   [0.935558] RDX: ffffacf68031fd08 RSI: 0000000000000020 RDI: 00000000000000f8
>   [0.936288] RBP: 0000000000000001 R08: 8000000000000063 R09: ffff99ff7cd37a40
>   [0.937021] R10: ffffacf68031fed0 R11: 0000000000200000 R12: 0000000000000020
>   [0.937749] R13: ffffacf68031fd08 R14: 00000000000000f8 R15: ffff99ff7da1ec60
>   [0.938486] FS:  00007fc2140bb280(0000) GS:ffff99ff7da00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
>   [0.939311] CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
>   [0.939905] CR2: 00000000000000f8 CR3: 0000000012dc8002 CR4: 0000000000760ef0
>   [0.940638] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
>   [0.941366] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
>   [0.942110] PKRU: 55555554
>   [0.942412] Call Trace:
>   [0.942673]  try_charge+0xcb/0x780
>   [0.943031]  memcg_kmem_charge_memcg+0x28/0x80
>   [0.943486]  ? __vmalloc_node_range+0x1e4/0x280
>   [0.943971]  memcg_kmem_charge+0x8b/0x1d0
>   [0.944396]  copy_process.part.41+0x1ca/0x2070
>   [0.944853]  ? get_acl+0x1a/0x120
>   [0.945200]  ? shmem_tmpfile+0x90/0x90
>   [0.945596]  _do_fork+0xd7/0x3d0
>   [0.945934]  ? trace_hardirqs_off_thunk+0x1a/0x1c
>   [0.946421]  do_syscall_64+0x5a/0x180
>   [0.946798]  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
> 
> The problem occurs because get_mem_cgroup_from_current() returns
> the NULL pointer if memory controller is disabled. Let's check
> if this is a case at the beginning of memcg_kmem_charge() and
> just return 0 if mem_cgroup_disabled() returns true. This is how
> we handle this case in many other places in the memory controller
> code.
> 
> Fixes: 9b6f7e163cd0 ("mm: rework memcg kernel stack accounting")
> Reported-by: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
> Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
> Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>

I tend to agree with Shakeel that consistency with the other caller
would be less confusing. I would split the function to __memcg_kmem_charge
without any checks and call it from __alloc_pages_nodemask and add the
check to memcg_kmem_charge. This would be less confusing I guess.

Something for a follow up clean up though.

Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>

> ---
>  mm/memcontrol.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 54920cbc46bf..6e1469b80cb7 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -2593,7 +2593,7 @@ int memcg_kmem_charge(struct page *page, gfp_t gfp, int order)
>  	struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
>  	int ret = 0;
>  
> -	if (memcg_kmem_bypass())
> +	if (mem_cgroup_disabled() || memcg_kmem_bypass())
>  		return 0;
>  
>  	memcg = get_mem_cgroup_from_current();
> -- 
> 2.17.2

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs