linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] memcg: make it work on sparse non-0-node systems

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: <CALvZod5MseXtY_BTHegdqBphCein20ou=zbvYymBJ9_zTUdWmg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 May 2019 09:05:59 -0700
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To:     Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>
Cc:     Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
        Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg: make it work on sparse non-0-node systems

On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 5:25 AM Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 12:59:39PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > We have a single node system with node 0 disabled:
> >   Scanning NUMA topology in Northbridge 24
> >   Number of physical nodes 2
> >   Skipping disabled node 0
> >   Node 1 MemBase 0000000000000000 Limit 00000000fbff0000
> >   NODE_DATA(1) allocated [mem 0xfbfda000-0xfbfeffff]
> >
> > This causes crashes in memcg when system boots:
> >   BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000008
> >   #PF error: [normal kernel read fault]
> > ...
> >   RIP: 0010:list_lru_add+0x94/0x170
> > ...
> >   Call Trace:
> >    d_lru_add+0x44/0x50
> >    dput.part.34+0xfc/0x110
> >    __fput+0x108/0x230
> >    task_work_run+0x9f/0xc0
> >    exit_to_usermode_loop+0xf5/0x100
> >
> > It is reproducible as far as 4.12. I did not try older kernels. You have
> > to have a new enough systemd, e.g. 241 (the reason is unknown -- was not
> > investigated). Cannot be reproduced with systemd 234.
> >
> > The system crashes because the size of lru array is never updated in
> > memcg_update_all_list_lrus and the reads are past the zero-sized array,
> > causing dereferences of random memory.
> >
> > The root cause are list_lru_memcg_aware checks in the list_lru code.
> > The test in list_lru_memcg_aware is broken: it assumes node 0 is always
> > present, but it is not true on some systems as can be seen above.
> >
> > So fix this by checking the first online node instead of node 0.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
> > Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
> > Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
> > Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>
> > Cc: <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>
> > Cc: <linux-mm@...ck.org>
> > Cc: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > ---
> >  mm/list_lru.c | 6 +-----
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/list_lru.c b/mm/list_lru.c
> > index 0730bf8ff39f..7689910f1a91 100644
> > --- a/mm/list_lru.c
> > +++ b/mm/list_lru.c
> > @@ -37,11 +37,7 @@ static int lru_shrinker_id(struct list_lru *lru)
> >
> >  static inline bool list_lru_memcg_aware(struct list_lru *lru)
> >  {
> > -     /*
> > -      * This needs node 0 to be always present, even
> > -      * in the systems supporting sparse numa ids.
> > -      */
> > -     return !!lru->node[0].memcg_lrus;
> > +     return !!lru->node[first_online_node].memcg_lrus;
> >  }
> >
> >  static inline struct list_lru_one *
>
> Yep, I didn't expect node 0 could ever be unavailable, my bad.
> The patch looks fine to me:
>
> Acked-by: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>
>
> However, I tend to agree with Michal that (ab)using node[0].memcg_lrus
> to check if a list_lru is memcg aware looks confusing. I guess we could
> simply add a bool flag to list_lru instead. Something like this, may be:
>

I think the bool flag approach is much better. No assumption on the
node initialization.

If we go with bool approach then add

Reviewed-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>

> diff --git a/include/linux/list_lru.h b/include/linux/list_lru.h
> index aa5efd9351eb..d5ceb2839a2d 100644
> --- a/include/linux/list_lru.h
> +++ b/include/linux/list_lru.h
> @@ -54,6 +54,7 @@ struct list_lru {
>  #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
>         struct list_head        list;
>         int                     shrinker_id;
> +       bool                    memcg_aware;
>  #endif
>  };
>
> diff --git a/mm/list_lru.c b/mm/list_lru.c
> index 0730bf8ff39f..8e605e40a4c6 100644
> --- a/mm/list_lru.c
> +++ b/mm/list_lru.c
> @@ -37,11 +37,7 @@ static int lru_shrinker_id(struct list_lru *lru)
>
>  static inline bool list_lru_memcg_aware(struct list_lru *lru)
>  {
> -       /*
> -        * This needs node 0 to be always present, even
> -        * in the systems supporting sparse numa ids.
> -        */
> -       return !!lru->node[0].memcg_lrus;
> +       return lru->memcg_aware;
>  }
>
>  static inline struct list_lru_one *
> @@ -451,6 +447,7 @@ static int memcg_init_list_lru(struct list_lru *lru, bool memcg_aware)
>  {
>         int i;
>
> +       lru->memcg_aware = memcg_aware;
>         if (!memcg_aware)
>                 return 0;
>