linux-kernel - Re: [External] Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: fix memsw uncharge for root_mem

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: <CAMZfGtVe6seRLA7Wo4TST0ApkaHdkDmv6sL5GZytK_4hvMbkXg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Mar 2021 16:50:41 +0800
From:   Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: fix memsw uncharge for root_mem_cgroup

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 4:33 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed 24-03-21 12:11:35, Muchun Song wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 11:04 PM Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The pages aren't accounted at the root level, so we cannot uncharge the
> > > page to the memsw counter for the root memcg. Fix this.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 1f47b61fb407 ("mm: memcontrol: fix swap counter leak on swapout from offline cgroup")
> > > Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
> >
> > I am very sorry. I should repent. I suddenly realise the fix is totally
> > wrong. Because the @memcg cannot be root memcg when
> > @memcg != @swap_memcg.
>
> I am probably blind but I do not see why this would be the case.
> We have memcg != swap_memcg in this branch but we do not know the
> neither of the two is root_mem_cgroup, no? If we did knot that we
> wouldn't have to check for swap_memcg != root_mem_cgroup. Or do I miss
> something?

I look at the mem_cgroup_id_get_online() closely. If memcg is root, this
function always returns root memcg. So memcg will equal swap_memcg.
I apologize for not carefully reviewing the code myself.

Thanks.

> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs