linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: fix panic in __alloc

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:   Tue, 2 Nov 2021 10:34:10 +0000
From:   Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@...are.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
CC:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Oscar Salvador <OSalvador@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix panic in __alloc_pages


>>>> In add_memory_resource() we hotplug the new node if required and set it
>>>> online. Memory might get onlined later, via online_pages().
>>> 
>>> You are correct. In case of memory hot add, it is true. But in case of adding
>>> CPU with memoryless node, try_node_online() will be called only during CPU
>>> onlining, see cpu_up().
>>> 
>>> Is there any reason why try_online_node() resides in cpu_up() and not in add_cpu()?
>>> I think it would be correct to online node during the CPU hot add to align with
>>> memory hot add.
>> 
>> I am not familiar with cpu hotplug, but this doesn't seem to be anything
>> new so how come this became problem only now?
> 
> So IIUC, the issue is that we have a node
> 
> a) That has no memory
> b) That is offline
> 
> This node will get onlined when onlining the CPU as Alexey says. Yet we
> have some code that stumbles over the node and goes ahead trying to use
> the pgdat -- that code is broken.

You are correct.

> 
> 
> If we take a look at build_zonelists() we indeed skip any
> !node_online(node). Any other code should do the same. If the node is
> not online, it shall be ignored because we might not even have a pgdat
> yet -- see hotadd_new_pgdat(). Without node_online(), the pgdat might be
> stale or non-existant.

Agree, alloc_pages_node() should also do the same. Not exactly to skip the node,
but to fallback to another node if !node_online(node).
alloc_pages_node() can also be hit while onlining the node, creating chicken-egg
problem, see below.

> 
> 
> The node onlining logic when onlining a CPU sounds bogus as well: Let's
> take a look at try_offline_node(). It checks that:
> 1) That no memory is *present*
> 2) That no CPU is *present*
> 
> We should online the node when adding the CPU ("present"), not when
> onlining the CPU.

Possible.
Assuming try_online_node was moved under add_cpu(), let’s
take look on this call stack:
add_cpu()
  try_online_node()
    __try_online_node()
      hotadd_new_pgdat()
At line 1190 we'll have a problem:
1183         pgdat = NODE_DATA(nid);
1184         if (!pgdat) {
1185                 pgdat = arch_alloc_nodedata(nid);
1186                 if (!pgdat)
1187                         return NULL;
1188
1189                 pgdat->per_cpu_nodestats =
1190                         alloc_percpu(struct per_cpu_nodestat);
1191                 arch_refresh_nodedata(nid, pgdat);

alloc_percpu() will go for all possible CPUs and will eventually end up
calling alloc_pages_node() trying to use subject nid for corresponding CPU
hitting the same state #2 problem as NODE_DATA(nid) is still NULL and nid
is not yet online.

I like the idea of onlining the node when adding the CPU rather then when
CPU get online. It will require current patch or another solution to resolve
described above chicken-egg problem.

PS, earlier this year I initiated discussion about redesigning per_cpu allocator
to do not allocate/waste memory chunks for not present CPUs, but it has another
complications.

Thanks,
—Alexey