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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 28 Mar 2022 09:30:28 +0800
From:   Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/list_lru: Fix possible race in memcg_reparent_list_lru_node()

On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 8:58 AM Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com> 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()")
> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>

How about the following patch?  It is low overhead on x86_64. Even on
relaxed memory mode, I think it is also lower overhead since it avoid a
store operation to nlru->lock.

We do not need to insert a smp_wmb() into the list_lru_add() since
spin_lock() always implies at least a load acquiring semantics.

Thanks.

diff --git a/mm/list_lru.c b/mm/list_lru.c
index c669d87001a6..0e58374b629b 100644
--- a/mm/list_lru.c
+++ b/mm/list_lru.c
@@ -397,8 +397,11 @@ static void memcg_reparent_list_lru_node(struct
list_lru *lru, int nid,
        /*
         * If there is no lru entry in this nlru, we can skip it immediately.
         */
-       if (!READ_ONCE(nlru->nr_items))
-               return;
+       if (!READ_ONCE(nlru->nr_items)) {
+               smp_rmb();
+               if (!spin_is_locked(&nlru->lock))
+                       return;
+       }

        /*
         * Since list_lru_{add,del} may be called under an IRQ-safe lock,