linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: change memcg->oom_group access with atomic operations

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: <CALvZod6UM1E6nGgfdORri90m3ju+yYeSeHBqyqutCP2A94WNKg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Feb 2023 08:56:59 -0800
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Cc:     Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
        Yue Zhao <findns94@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hannes@...xchg.org, mhocko@...nel.org,
        muchun.song@...ux.dev, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: change memcg->oom_group access with atomic operations

+Paul & Marco

On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 5:51 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 10:52:10PM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 9:17 PM Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 20, 2023, at 3:06 PM, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 01:09:44PM -0800, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > >>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 11:16:38PM +0800, Yue Zhao wrote:
> > > >>> The knob for cgroup v2 memory controller: memory.oom.group
> > > >>> will be read and written simultaneously by user space
> > > >>> programs, thus we'd better change memcg->oom_group access
> > > >>> with atomic operations to avoid concurrency problems.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Signed-off-by: Yue Zhao <findns94@...il.com>
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi Yue!
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm curious, have any seen any real issues which your patch is solving?
> > > >> Can you, please, provide a bit more details.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > IMHO such details are not needed. oom_group is being accessed
> > > > concurrently and one of them can be a write access. At least
> > > > READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE is needed here.
> > >
> > > Needed for what?
> >
> > For this particular case, documenting such an access. Though I don't
> > think there are any architectures which may tear a one byte read/write
> > and merging/refetching is not an issue for this.
>
> Wouldn't a compiler be within its rights to implement a one byte store as:
>
>         load-word
>         modify-byte-in-word
>         store-word
>
> and if this is a lockless store to a word which has an adjacent byte also
> being modified by another CPU, one of those CPUs can lose its store?
> And WRITE_ONCE would prevent the compiler from implementing the store
> in that way.
>

Thanks Willy for pointing this out. If the compiler can really do this
then [READ|WRITE]_ONCE are required here. I always have big bad
compiler lwn article open in a tab. I couldn't map this transformation
to ones mentioned in that article. Do we have name of this one?

thanks,
Shakeel