linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/list_lru: Fix possible race in memcg_reparent_list_lru

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:   Sun, 27 Mar 2022 20:58:58 -0400
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/list_lru: Fix possible race in
 memcg_reparent_list_lru_node()

On 3/27/22 20:57, Waiman Long wrote:
> Muchun Song found out there could be a race between list_lru_add()
> and memcg_reparent_list_lru_node() causing the later function to miss
> reparenting of a lru entry as shown below:
>
> CPU0:                               CPU1:
> list_lru_add()
>       spin_lock(&nlru->lock)
>       l = list_lru_from_kmem(memcg)
>                                       memcg_reparent_objcgs(memcg)
>                                       memcg_reparent_list_lrus(memcg)
>                                           memcg_reparent_list_lru()
>                                               memcg_reparent_list_lru_node()
>                                                   if (!READ_ONCE(nlru->nr_items))
>                                                       // Miss reparenting
>                                                       return
>       // Assume 0->1
>       l->nr_items++
>       // Assume 0->1
>       nlru->nr_items++
>
> Though it is not likely that a list_lru_node that has 0 item suddenly
> has a newly added lru entry at the end of its life. The race is still
> theoretically possible.
>
> Adding a spin_is_locked() check will likely be enough for x86, but it
> is less certain for other arches with a more relaxed memory semantics
> like arcm64 and ppc. To avoid race, this patch moves the nr_items check
> to within the lock critical section.
>
> Fixes: 405cc51fc104 ("mm/list_lru: optimize memcg_reparent_list_lru_node()")

Sorry, I should have added

Reported-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>

> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
> ---
>   mm/list_lru.c | 12 ++++++------
>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/list_lru.c b/mm/list_lru.c
> index c669d87001a6..8aec8ebd5995 100644
> --- a/mm/list_lru.c
> +++ b/mm/list_lru.c
> @@ -394,18 +394,18 @@ static void memcg_reparent_list_lru_node(struct list_lru *lru, int nid,
>   	int dst_idx = dst_memcg->kmemcg_id;
>   	struct list_lru_one *src, *dst;
>   
> -	/*
> -	 * If there is no lru entry in this nlru, we can skip it immediately.
> -	 */
> -	if (!READ_ONCE(nlru->nr_items))
> -		return;
> -
>   	/*
>   	 * Since list_lru_{add,del} may be called under an IRQ-safe lock,
>   	 * we have to use IRQ-safe primitives here to avoid deadlock.
>   	 */
>   	spin_lock_irq(&nlru->lock);
>   
> +	/*
> +	 * If there is no lru entry in this nlru, we can skip it immediately.
> +	 */
> +	if (!nlru->nr_items)
> +		goto out;
> +
>   	src = list_lru_from_memcg_idx(lru, nid, src_idx);
>   	if (!src)
>   		goto out;
Cheers,
Longman