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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <23fde2e7-e9e2-2b0d-dfd8-1a654bc5503c@ya.ru>
Date:   Wed, 22 Feb 2023 23:05:43 +0300
From:   Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...ru>
To:     Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
Cc:     sultan@...neltoast.com, dave@...olabs.net,
        penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp, paulmck@...nel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
        Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] mm: vmscan: make memcg slab shrink lockless

On 22.02.2023 11:21, Qi Zheng wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2023/2/22 16:16, Qi Zheng wrote:
>> Hi Kirill,
>>
>> On 2023/2/22 05:43, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>>> On 20.02.2023 12:16, Qi Zheng wrote:
>>>> Like global slab shrink, since commit 1cd0bd06093c<...>
>>>>   static bool cgroup_reclaim(struct scan_control *sc)
>>>> @@ -891,15 +905,14 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab_memcg(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
>>>>   {
>>>>       struct shrinker_info *info;
>>>>       unsigned long ret, freed = 0;
>>>> +    int srcu_idx;
>>>>       int i;
>>>>       if (!mem_cgroup_online(memcg))
>>>>           return 0;
>>>> -    if (!down_read_trylock(&shrinker_rwsem))
>>>> -        return 0;
>>>> -
>>>> -    info = shrinker_info_protected(memcg, nid);
>>>> +    srcu_idx = srcu_read_lock(&shrinker_srcu);
>>>> +    info = shrinker_info_srcu(memcg, nid);
>>>>       if (unlikely(!info))
>>>>           goto unlock;
>>>
>>> There is shrinker_nr_max dereference under this hunk. It's not in the patch:
>>>
>>>          for_each_set_bit(i, info->map, shrinker_nr_max) {
>>>
>>> Since shrinker_nr_max may grow in parallel, this leads to access beyond allocated memory :(
>>
>> Oh, indeed.
>>
>>>
>>> It looks like we should save size of info->map as a new member of struct shrinker_info.
>>
>> Agree, then we only traverse info->map_size each time. Like below:
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
>> index b6eda2ab205d..f1b5d2803007 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
>> @@ -97,6 +97,7 @@ struct shrinker_info {
>>          struct rcu_head rcu;
>>          atomic_long_t *nr_deferred;
>>          unsigned long *map;
>> +       int map_size;

Sure, like this. The only thing (after rethinking) I want to say is that despite "size" was
may suggestion, now it makes me think that name "size" is about size in bytes.

Possible, something like map_nr_max would be better here.

>>   };
>>
>>   struct lruvec_stats_percpu {
>> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
>> index f94bfe540675..dd07eb107915 100644
>> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
>> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
>> @@ -239,14 +239,20 @@ static void free_shrinker_info_rcu(struct rcu_head *head)
>>          kvfree(container_of(head, struct shrinker_info, rcu));
>>   }
>>
>> -static int expand_one_shrinker_info(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
>> -                                   int map_size, int defer_size,
>> -                                   int old_map_size, int old_defer_size)
>> +static int expand_one_shrinker_info(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, int new_nr_max,
>> +                                   int old_nr_max)
>>   {
>> +       int map_size, defer_size, old_map_size, old_defer_size;
>>          struct shrinker_info *new, *old;
>>          struct mem_cgroup_per_node *pn;
>>          int nid;
>> -       int size = map_size + defer_size;
>> +       int size;
>> +
>> +       map_size = shrinker_map_size(new_nr_max);
>> +       defer_size = shrinker_defer_size(new_nr_max);
>> +       old_map_size = shrinker_map_size(shrinker_nr_max);
>> +       old_defer_size = shrinker_defer_size(shrinker_nr_max);
> 
> Perhaps these should still be calculated outside the loop as before.

Yeah, for me it's also better.
 
>> +       size = map_size + defer_size;
>>
>>          for_each_node(nid) {
>>                  pn = memcg->nodeinfo[nid];
>> @@ -261,6 +267,7 @@ static int expand_one_shrinker_info(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
>>
>>                  new->nr_deferred = (atomic_long_t *)(new + 1);
>>                  new->map = (void *)new->nr_deferred + defer_size;
>> +               new->map_size = new_nr_max;
>>
>>                  /* map: set all old bits, clear all new bits */
>>                  memset(new->map, (int)0xff, old_map_size);
>> @@ -310,6 +317,7 @@ int alloc_shrinker_info(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>>                  }
>>                  info->nr_deferred = (atomic_long_t *)(info + 1);
>>                  info->map = (void *)info->nr_deferred + defer_size;
>> +               info->map_size = shrinker_nr_max;
>>                  rcu_assign_pointer(memcg->nodeinfo[nid]->shrinker_info, info);
>>          }
>>          mutex_unlock(&shrinker_mutex);
>> @@ -327,8 +335,6 @@ static int expand_shrinker_info(int new_id)
>>   {
>>          int ret = 0;
>>          int new_nr_max = new_id + 1;
>> -       int map_size, defer_size = 0;
>> -       int old_map_size, old_defer_size = 0;
>>          struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
>>
>>          if (!need_expand(new_nr_max))
>> @@ -339,15 +345,9 @@ static int expand_shrinker_info(int new_id)
>>
>>          lockdep_assert_held(&shrinker_mutex);
>>
>> -       map_size = shrinker_map_size(new_nr_max);
>> -       defer_size = shrinker_defer_size(new_nr_max);
>> -       old_map_size = shrinker_map_size(shrinker_nr_max);
>> -       old_defer_size = shrinker_defer_size(shrinker_nr_max);
>> -
>>          memcg = mem_cgroup_iter(NULL, NULL, NULL);
>>          do {
>> -               ret = expand_one_shrinker_info(memcg, map_size, defer_size,
>> -                                              old_map_size, old_defer_size);
>> +               ret = expand_one_shrinker_info(memcg, new_nr_max, shrinker_nr_max);
>>                  if (ret) {
>>                          mem_cgroup_iter_break(NULL, memcg);
>>                          goto out;
>> @@ -912,7 +912,7 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab_memcg(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
>>          if (unlikely(!info))
>>                  goto unlock;
>>
>> -       for_each_set_bit(i, info->map, shrinker_nr_max) {
>> +       for_each_set_bit(i, info->map, info->map_size) {
>>                  struct shrink_control sc = {
>>                          .gfp_mask = gfp_mask,
>>                          .nid = nid,
>>
>> I will send the v2.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Qi
>>
>>>
>>>> @@ -949,14 +962,9 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab_memcg(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
>>>>                   set_shrinker_bit(memcg, nid, i);
>>>>           }
>>>>           freed += ret;
>>>> -
>>>> -        if (rwsem_is_contended(&shrinker_rwsem)) {
>>>> -            freed = freed ? : 1;
>>>> -            break;
>>>> -        }
>>>>       }
>>>>   unlock:
>>>> -    up_read(&shrinker_rwsem);
>>>> +    srcu_read_unlock(&shrinker_srcu, srcu_idx);
>>>>       return freed;
>>>>   }
>>>>   #else /* CONFIG_MEMCG */
>>>
>>
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ