linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] cgroup: memcg: net: do not associate sock with unrelated cgroup

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: <CALvZod5Vbua5=J6p2RDqmdJTC3D234zy41t-DHrL=qWMjh_OdA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 Feb 2020 14:44:28 -0800
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To:     Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cgroup: memcg: net: do not associate sock with
 unrelated cgroup

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 2:33 PM Roman Gushchin <guro@...com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 02:24:15PM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > We are testing network memory accounting in our setup and noticed
> > inconsistent network memory usage and often unrelated cgroups network
> > usage correlates with testing workload. On further inspection, it
> > seems like mem_cgroup_sk_alloc() and cgroup_sk_alloc() are broken in
> > irq context specially for cgroup v1.
> >
> > mem_cgroup_sk_alloc() and cgroup_sk_alloc() can be called in irq context
> > and kind of assumes that this can only happen from sk_clone_lock()
> > and the source sock object has already associated cgroup. However in
> > cgroup v1, where network memory accounting is opt-in, the source sock
> > can be unassociated with any cgroup and the new cloned sock can get
> > associated with unrelated interrupted cgroup.
> >
> > Cgroup v2 can also suffer if the source sock object was created by
> > process in the root cgroup or if sk_alloc() is called in irq context.
> > The fix is to just do nothing in interrupt.
> >
> > Fixes: 2d7580738345 ("mm: memcontrol: consolidate cgroup socket tracking")
> > Fixes: d979a39d7242 ("cgroup: duplicate cgroup reference when cloning sockets")
> > Signed-off-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
> > ---
> >
> > Changes since v1:
> > - Fix cgroup_sk_alloc() too.
> >
> >  kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c | 4 ++++
> >  mm/memcontrol.c        | 4 ++++
> >  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c
> > index 9a8a5ded3c48..46e5f5518fba 100644
> > --- a/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c
> > +++ b/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c
> > @@ -6449,6 +6449,10 @@ void cgroup_sk_alloc(struct sock_cgroup_data *skcd)
> >               return;
> >       }
> >
> > +     /* Do not associate the sock with unrelated interrupted task's memcg. */
>                                                                        ^^^^^
>                                                                        cgroup?
> > +     if (in_interrupt())
> > +             return;
> > +
> >       rcu_read_lock();
> >
> >       while (true) {
> > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > index 63bb6a2aab81..f500da82bfe8 100644
> > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > @@ -6697,6 +6697,10 @@ void mem_cgroup_sk_alloc(struct sock *sk)
> >               return;
> >       }
>
> Can you, please, include the stacktrace into the commit log?
> Except a minor typo (see above),
> Reviewed-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
>
> A really good catch.
>

Thanks, I will add the stack trace and fix the typo.

Shakeel