linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/oom_kill: wake futex waiters before annihilating victim shared mutex

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:   Fri, 14 Jan 2022 09:55:10 -0500
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Joel Savitz <jsavitz@...hat.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Nico Pache <npache@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        André Almeida <andrealmeid@...labora.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/oom_kill: wake futex waiters before annihilating
 victim shared mutex

On 1/14/22 09:39, Joel Savitz wrote:
>> What has happened to the oom victim and why it has never exited?
> What appears to happen is that the oom victim is sent SIGKILL by the
> process that triggers the oom while also being marked as an oom
> victim.
>
> As you mention in your patchset introducing the oom reaper in commit
> aac4536355496 ("mm, oom: introduce oom reaper"), the purpose the the
> oom reaper is to try and free more memory more quickly than it
> otherwise would have been by assuming anonymous or swapped out pages
> won't be needed in the exit path as the owner is already dying.
> However, this assumption is violated by the futex_cleanup() path,
> which needs access to userspace in fetch_robust_entry() when it is
> called in exit_robust_list(). Trace_printk()s in this failure path
> reveal an apparent race between the oom reaper thread reaping the
> victim's mm and the futex_cleanup() path. There may be other ways that
> this race manifests but we have been most consistently able to trace
> that one.
>
> Since in the case of an oom victim using robust futexes the core
> assumption of the oom reaper is violated, we propose to solve this
> problem by either canceling or delaying the waking of the oom reaper
> thread by wake_oom_reaper in the case that tsk->robust_list is
> non-NULL.
>
> e.g. the bug does not reproduce with this patch (from npache@...hat.com):
>
> diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> index 989f35a2bbb1..b8c518fdcf4d 100644
> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> @@ -665,6 +665,19 @@ static void wake_oom_reaper(struct task_struct *tsk)
>          if (test_and_set_bit(MMF_OOM_REAP_QUEUED, &tsk->signal->oom_mm->flags))
>                  return;
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_FUTEX
> +       /*
> +        * don't wake the oom_reaper thread if we still have a robust
> list to handle
> +        * This will then rely on the sigkill to handle the cleanup of memory
> +        */
> +       if(tsk->robust_list)
> +               return;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
> +       if(tsk->compat_robust_list)
> +               return;
> +#endif
> +#endif
> +
>          get_task_struct(tsk);
>
>          spin_lock(&oom_reaper_lock);

OK, that can explain why the robust futex is not properly cleaned up. 
Could you post a more formal v2 patch with description about the 
possible race condition?

Cheers,
Longman