linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 07/10] mm: synchronize access to 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: <20190605220201.GA16188@tower.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Wed, 5 Jun 2019 22:02:06 +0000
From:   Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
To:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
CC:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
        "Shakeel Butt" <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 07/10] mm: synchronize access to kmem_cache dying flag
 using a spinlock

On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 12:56:16PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 07:44:51PM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > Currently the memcg_params.dying flag and the corresponding
> > workqueue used for the asynchronous deactivation of kmem_caches
> > is synchronized using the slab_mutex.
> > 
> > It makes impossible to check this flag from the irq context,
> > which will be required in order to implement asynchronous release
> > of kmem_caches.
> > 
> > So let's switch over to the irq-save flavor of the spinlock-based
> > synchronization.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
> > ---
> >  mm/slab_common.c | 19 +++++++++++++++----
> >  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/mm/slab_common.c b/mm/slab_common.c
> > index 09b26673b63f..2914a8f0aa85 100644
> > --- a/mm/slab_common.c
> > +++ b/mm/slab_common.c
> > @@ -130,6 +130,7 @@ int __kmem_cache_alloc_bulk(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t flags, size_t nr,
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
> >  
> >  LIST_HEAD(slab_root_caches);
> > +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(memcg_kmem_wq_lock);
> >  
> >  void slab_init_memcg_params(struct kmem_cache *s)
> >  {
> > @@ -629,6 +630,7 @@ void memcg_create_kmem_cache(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> >  	struct memcg_cache_array *arr;
> >  	struct kmem_cache *s = NULL;
> >  	char *cache_name;
> > +	bool dying;
> >  	int idx;
> >  
> >  	get_online_cpus();
> > @@ -640,7 +642,13 @@ void memcg_create_kmem_cache(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> >  	 * The memory cgroup could have been offlined while the cache
> >  	 * creation work was pending.
> >  	 */
> > -	if (memcg->kmem_state != KMEM_ONLINE || root_cache->memcg_params.dying)
> > +	if (memcg->kmem_state != KMEM_ONLINE)
> > +		goto out_unlock;
> > +
> > +	spin_lock_irq(&memcg_kmem_wq_lock);
> > +	dying = root_cache->memcg_params.dying;
> > +	spin_unlock_irq(&memcg_kmem_wq_lock);
> > +	if (dying)
> >  		goto out_unlock;
> 
> What does this lock protect? The dying flag could get set right after
> the unlock.
>

Hi Johannes!

Here is my logic:

1) flush_memcg_workqueue() must guarantee that no new memcg kmem_caches
will be created, and there are no works queued, which will touch
the root kmem_cache, so it can be released
2) so it sets the dying flag, waits for an rcu grace period and flushes
the workqueue (that means for all in-flight works)
3) dying flag in checked in kmemcg_cache_shutdown() and
kmemcg_cache_deactivate(), so that if it set, no new works/rcu tasks
will be queued. corresponding queue_work()/call_rcu() are all under
memcg_kmem_wq_lock lock.
4) memcg_schedule_kmem_cache_create() doesn't check the dying flag
(probably to avoid taking locks on a hot path), but it does
memcg_create_kmem_cache(), which is part of the scheduled work.
And it does it at the very beginning, so even if new kmem_caches
are scheduled to be created, the root kmem_cache won't be touched.

Previously the flag was checked under slab_mutex, but now we set it
under memcg_kmem_wq_lock lock. So I'm not sure we can read it without
taking this lock.

If the flag will be set after unlock, it's fine. It means that the
work has already been scheduled, and flush_workqueue() in
flush_memcg_workqueue() will wait for it. The only problem is if we
don't see the flag after flush_workqueue() is called, but I don't
see how it's possible.

Does it makes sense? I'm sure there are ways to make it more obvious.
Please, let me know if you've any ideas.

Thank you!