| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <ee7852cc-e37e-5602-7729-5bb1500a1f2a@bytedance.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 12:37:19 +0800
From: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
To: Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...ru>
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 2023/2/23 04:05, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> 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.
Agree. Will change to it.
>
>>> };
>>>
>>> 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 */
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
--
Thanks,
Qi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists