linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/mempolicy: fix lock contention on mems

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: <7ece0714-2646-4f1a-60b6-aaafc1135b1e@bytedance.com>
Date:   Thu, 11 Aug 2022 16:43:28 +0800
From:   Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/mempolicy: fix lock contention on mems_allowed

On 8/9/22 8:11 PM, Michal Hocko Wrote:
> On Tue 09-08-22 18:49:27, Abel Wu wrote:
>> The mems_allowed field can be modified by other tasks, so it
>> isn't safe to access it with alloc_lock unlocked even in the
>> current process context.
> 
> It would be useful to describe the racing scenario and the effect it
> would have. 78b132e9bae9 hasn't really explained thinking behind and why
> it was considered safe to drop the lock. I assume it was based on the
> fact that the operation happens on the current task but this is hard to
> tell.
> 

Sorry for my poor description. Say there are two tasks: A from cpusetA
is performing set_mempolicy(2), and B is changing cpusetA's cpuset.mems.

     A (set_mempolicy)		B (echo xx > cpuset.mems)

     pol = mpol_new();
				update_tasks_nodemask(cpusetA) {
				  foreach t in cpusetA {
				    cpuset_change_task_nodemask(t) {
				      task_lock(t); // t could be A
     mpol_set_nodemask(pol) {
       new = f(A->mems_allowed);
				      update t->mems_allowed;
       pol.create(pol, new);
     }
				      task_unlock(t);
     task_lock(A);
     A->mempolicy = pol;
     task_unlock(A);
				    }
				  }
				}

In this case A's pol->nodes is computed by old mems_allowed, and could
be inconsistent with A's new mems_allowed.

While it is different when replacing vmas' policy: the pol->nodes is
gone wild only when current_cpuset_is_being_rebound():

     A (mbind)			B (echo xx > cpuset.mems)

				cpuset_being_rebound = cpusetA;
				update_tasks_nodemask(cpusetA) {
				  foreach t in cpusetA {
				    cpuset_change_task_nodemask(t) {
				      task_lock(t); // t could be A
     pol = mpol_new();
     mmap_write_lock(A->mm);
     mpol_set_nodemask(pol) {
       mask = f(A->mems_allowed);
				      update t->mems_allowed;
       pol.create(pol, mask);
     }
				      task_unlock(t);
				    }
     foreach v in A->mm {
       if (current_cpuset_is_being_rebound())
         pol.rebind(pol, cpuset.mems);
       v->vma_policy = pol;
     }
     mmap_write_unlock(A->mm);
				    mmap_write_lock(t->mm);
				    mpol_rebind_mm(t->mm);
				    mmap_write_unlock(t->mm);
				  }
				}
				cpuset_being_rebound = NULL;

In this case, the cpuset.mems, which has already done updating, is
finally used for calculating pol->nodes, rather than A->mems_allowed.
So it is OK to call mpol_set_nodemask() with alloc_lock unlocked when
doing mbind(2).

Best Regards,
Abel