linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20220820020601.vxeotpde5obuauqt@master>
Date:   Sat, 20 Aug 2022 02:06:01 +0000
From:   Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>,
        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,
        Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/mempolicy: fix lock contention on mems_allowed

On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 04:11:21PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>fix the lkml address (fat fingers, sorry)
>
>On Thu 11-08-22 16:06:37, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> [Cc Wei Yang who is author of 78b132e9bae9]
>> 
>> On Thu 11-08-22 20:41:57, 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.
>> > 
>> > 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) {
>> >   mpol_set_nodemask(pol) {
>> > 				      task_lock(t); // t could be A
>> >     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.
>> 
>> Just to clarify. With an unfortunate timing and those two nodemasks
>> overlap the end user effect could be a premature OOM because some nodes
>> wouldn't be considered, right?
>> 
>> > 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)
>> >   -------------------------------------------------------
>> >   pol = mpol_new();
>> >   mmap_write_lock(A->mm);
>> > 				cpuset_being_rebound = cpusetA;
>> > 				update_tasks_nodemask(cpusetA) {
>> > 				  foreach t in cpusetA {
>> > 				    cpuset_change_task_nodemask(t) {
>> >   mpol_set_nodemask(pol) {
>> > 				      task_lock(t); // t could be A
>> >     mask = f(A->mems_allowed);
>> > 				      update t->mems_allowed;
>> >     pol.create(pol, mask);
>> > 				      task_unlock(t);
>> >   }
>> > 				    }
>> >   foreach v in A->mm {
>> >     if (cpuset_being_rebound == cpusetA)
>> >       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).
>> > 
>> > Fixes: 78b132e9bae9 ("mm/mempolicy: remove or narrow the lock on current")
>> > Signed-off-by: Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>
>> 

Thanks for pointing out. This looks correct.

Reviewed-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>