linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next] mm/vmscan: fix an undefined behavior for zone id

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: <20191112163156.GB512@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 12 Nov 2019 17:31:56 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc:     Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>, Qian Cai <cai@....pw>,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, guro@...com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] mm/vmscan: fix an undefined behavior for zone id

On Tue 12-11-19 11:16:58, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 04:27:50PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 12-11-19 06:59:42, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > Qian, thanks for the report and the fix.
> > > 
> > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 02:28:12PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Mon 11-11-19 13:14:27, Chris Down wrote:
> > > > > Chris Down writes:
> > > > > > Ah, I just saw this in my local checkout and thought it was from my
> > > > > > changes, until I saw it's also on clean mmots checkout. Thanks for the
> > > > > > fixup!
> > > > > 
> > > > > Also, does this mean we should change callers that may pass through
> > > > > zone_idx=MAX_NR_ZONES to become MAX_NR_ZONES-1 in a separate commit, then
> > > > > remove this interim fixup? I'm worried otherwise we might paper over real
> > > > > issues in future.
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, removing this special casing is reasonable. I am not sure
> > > > MAX_NR_ZONES - 1 is a better choice though. It is error prone and
> > > > zone_idx is the highest zone we should consider and MAX_NR_ZONES - 1
> > > > be ZONE_DEVICE if it is configured. But ZONE_DEVICE is really standing
> > > > outside of MM reclaim code AFAIK. It would be probably better to have
> > > > MAX_LRU_ZONE (equal to MOVABLE) and use it instead.
> > > 
> > > We already use MAX_NR_ZONES - 1 everywhere else in vmscan.c to mean
> > > "no zone restrictions" - get_scan_count() is the odd one out:
> > > 
> > > - mem_cgroup_shrink_node()
> > > - try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages()
> > > - balance_pgdat()
> > > - kswapd()
> > > - shrink_all_memory()
> > > 
> > > It's a little odd that it points to ZONE_DEVICE, but it's MUCH less
> > > subtle than handling both inclusive and exclusive range delimiters.
> > > 
> > > So I think the better fix would be this:
> > 
> > lruvec_lru_size is explicitly documented to use MAX_NR_ZONES for all
> > LRUs and git grep says there are more instances outside of
> > get_scan_count. So all of them have to be fixed.
> 
> Which ones?
> 
> [hannes@...puter linux]$ git grep lruvec_lru_size
> include/linux/mmzone.h:extern unsigned long lruvec_lru_size(struct lruvec *lruvec, enum lru_list lru, int zone_idx);
> mm/vmscan.c: * lruvec_lru_size -  Returns the number of pages on the given LRU list.
> mm/vmscan.c:unsigned long lruvec_lru_size(struct lruvec *lruvec, enum lru_list lru, int zone_idx)
> mm/vmscan.c:    anon  = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_ACTIVE_ANON, MAX_NR_ZONES - 1) +
> mm/vmscan.c:            lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_INACTIVE_ANON, MAX_NR_ZONES - 1);
> mm/vmscan.c:    file  = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_ACTIVE_FILE, MAX_NR_ZONES - 1) +
> mm/vmscan.c:            lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_INACTIVE_FILE, MAX_NR_ZONES - 1);
> mm/vmscan.c:            lruvec_size = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, lru, sc->reclaim_idx);
> [hannes@...puter linux]$

I have checked the Linus tree but now double checked with the current
next
$ git describe next/master
next-20191112
$ git grep "lruvec_lru_size.*MAX_NR_ZONES" next/master
next/master:mm/vmscan.c:                        lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, inactive_lru, MAX_NR_ZONES), inactive,
next/master:mm/vmscan.c:                        lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, active_lru, MAX_NR_ZONES), active,
next/master:mm/vmscan.c:        anon  = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_ACTIVE_ANON, MAX_NR_ZONES) +
next/master:mm/vmscan.c:                lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_INACTIVE_ANON, MAX_NR_ZONES);
next/master:mm/vmscan.c:        file  = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_ACTIVE_FILE, MAX_NR_ZONES) +
next/master:mm/vmscan.c:                lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_INACTIVE_FILE, MAX_NR_ZONES);
next/master:mm/workingset.c:    active_file = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_ACTIVE_FILE, MAX_NR_ZONES);

are there any changes which didn't make it to linux next yet?

> The only other user already passes sc->reclaim_idx, which always
> points to a valid zone, and is initialized to MAX_NR_ZONES - 1 in many
> places.
> 
> > I still think that MAX_NR_ZONES - 1 is a very error prone and subtle
> > construct IMHO and an alias would be better readable.
> 
> I wouldn't mind a follow-up patch that changes this pattern
> comprehensively. As it stands, get_scan_count() is the odd one out.

OK, a follow up patch to unify everything makes sense to me.

> The documentation bit is a good point, though. We should fix
> that. Updated patch:
> 
> ---
> 
> >From b1b6ce306010554aba6ebd7aac0abffc1576d71a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
> Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 13:46:25 -0800
> Subject: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: simplify lruvec_lru_size() fix
> 
> get_scan_count() passes MAX_NR_ZONES for the reclaim index, which is
> beyond the range of valid zone indexes, but used to be handled before
> the patch. Every other callsite in vmscan.c passes MAX_NR_ZONES - 1 to
> express "all zones, please", so do the same here.
> 
> Reported-by: Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
> Reported-by: Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
> ---
>  mm/vmscan.c | 10 +++++-----
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index df859b1d583c..5eb96a63ad1e 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -323,7 +323,7 @@ unsigned long zone_reclaimable_pages(struct zone *zone)
>   * lruvec_lru_size -  Returns the number of pages on the given LRU list.
>   * @lruvec: lru vector
>   * @lru: lru to use
> - * @zone_idx: zones to consider (use MAX_NR_ZONES for the whole LRU list)
> + * @zone_idx: index of the highest zone to include (use MAX_NR_ZONES - 1 for all)
>   */
>  unsigned long lruvec_lru_size(struct lruvec *lruvec, enum lru_list lru, int zone_idx)
>  {
> @@ -2322,10 +2322,10 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc,
>  	 * anon in [0], file in [1]
>  	 */
>  
> -	anon  = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_ACTIVE_ANON, MAX_NR_ZONES) +
> -		lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_INACTIVE_ANON, MAX_NR_ZONES);
> -	file  = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_ACTIVE_FILE, MAX_NR_ZONES) +
> -		lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_INACTIVE_FILE, MAX_NR_ZONES);
> +	anon  = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_ACTIVE_ANON, MAX_NR_ZONES - 1) +
> +		lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_INACTIVE_ANON, MAX_NR_ZONES - 1);
> +	file  = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_ACTIVE_FILE, MAX_NR_ZONES - 1) +
> +		lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_INACTIVE_FILE, MAX_NR_ZONES - 1);
>  
>  	spin_lock_irq(&pgdat->lru_lock);
>  	if (unlikely(reclaim_stat->recent_scanned[0] > anon / 4)) {
> -- 
> 2.24.0

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs