linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/18] mm: memcontrol: fix theoretical race in charge moving

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]

Date:   Wed, 22 Apr 2020 13:42:29 -0400
From:   Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To:     Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
Cc:     Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>,
        Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/18] mm: memcontrol: fix theoretical race in charge
 moving

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 09:51:20AM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 3:11 PM Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org> wrote:
> > @@ -5426,15 +5420,23 @@ static int mem_cgroup_move_account(struct page *page,
> >         }
> >
> >         /*
> > +        * All state has been migrated, let's switch to the new memcg.
> > +        *
> >          * It is safe to change page->mem_cgroup here because the page
> > -        * is referenced, charged, and isolated - we can't race with
> > -        * uncharging, charging, migration, or LRU putback.
> > +        * is referenced, charged, isolated, and locked: we can't race
> > +        * with (un)charging, migration, LRU putback, or anything else
> > +        * that would rely on a stable page->mem_cgroup.
> > +        *
> > +        * Note that lock_page_memcg is a memcg lock, not a page lock,
> > +        * to save space. As soon as we switch page->mem_cgroup to a
> > +        * new memcg that isn't locked, the above state can change
> > +        * concurrently again. Make sure we're truly done with it.
> >          */
> > +       smp_mb();
> 
> You said theoretical race in the subject but the above comment
> convinced me that smp_mb() is required. So, why is the race still
> theoretical?

Sorry about the confusion.

I said theoretical because I spotted it while thinking about the
code. I'm not aware of any real users that suffered the consequences
of this race condition. But they could exist in theory :-)

I think it's a real bug that needs fixing.