linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] cgroup: rstat: only disable interrupts for the percpu lock

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]

Date:   Thu, 23 Mar 2023 13:33:43 -0400
From:   Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To:     Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
Cc:     Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
        Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vasily Averin <vasily.averin@...ux.dev>,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] cgroup: rstat: only disable interrupts for the
 percpu lock

On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 09:17:33AM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 9:10 AM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 8:46 AM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 8:43 AM Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 8:40 AM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 6:36 AM Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2. Are we really calling rstat flush in irq context?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think it is possible through the charge/uncharge path:
> > > > > > > > memcg_check_events()->mem_cgroup_threshold()->mem_cgroup_usage(). I
> > > > > > > > added the protection against flushing in an interrupt context for
> > > > > > > > future callers as well, as it may cause a deadlock if we don't disable
> > > > > > > > interrupts when acquiring cgroup_rstat_lock.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 3. The mem_cgroup_flush_stats() call in mem_cgroup_usage() is only
> > > > > > > > > done for root memcg. Why is mem_cgroup_threshold() interested in root
> > > > > > > > > memcg usage? Why not ignore root memcg in mem_cgroup_threshold() ?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am not sure, but the code looks like event notifications may be set
> > > > > > > > up on root memcg, which is why we need to check thresholds.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is something we should deprecate as root memcg's usage is ill defined.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Right, but I think this would be orthogonal to this patch series.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think we can make cgroup_rstat_lock a non-irq-disabling lock
> > > > > without either breaking a link between mem_cgroup_threshold and
> > > > > cgroup_rstat_lock or make mem_cgroup_threshold work without disabling
> > > > > irqs.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, this patch can not be applied before either of those two tasks are
> > > > > done (and we may find more such scenarios).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Could you elaborate why?
> > > >
> > > > My understanding is that with an in_task() check to make sure we only
> > > > acquire cgroup_rstat_lock from non-irq context it should be fine to
> > > > acquire cgroup_rstat_lock without disabling interrupts.
> > >
> > > From mem_cgroup_threshold() code path, cgroup_rstat_lock will be taken
> > > with irq disabled while other code paths will take cgroup_rstat_lock
> > > with irq enabled. This is a potential deadlock hazard unless
> > > cgroup_rstat_lock is always taken with irq disabled.
> >
> > Oh you are making sure it is not taken in the irq context through
> > should_skip_flush(). Hmm seems like a hack. Normally it is recommended
> > to actually remove all such users instead of silently
> > ignoring/bypassing the functionality.

+1

It shouldn't silently skip the requested operation, rather it
shouldn't be requested from an incompatible context.

> > So, how about removing mem_cgroup_flush_stats() from
> > mem_cgroup_usage(). It will break the known chain which is taking
> > cgroup_rstat_lock with irq disabled and you can add
> > WARN_ON_ONCE(!in_task()).
> 
> This changes the behavior in a more obvious way because:
> 1. The memcg_check_events()->mem_cgroup_threshold()->mem_cgroup_usage()
> path is also exercised in a lot of paths outside irq context, this
> will change the behavior for any event thresholds on the root memcg.
> With proposed skipped flushing in irq context we only change the
> behavior in a small subset of cases.

Can you do

	/* Note: stale usage data when called from irq context!! */
	if (in_task())
		mem_cgroup_flush_stats()

directly in the callsite? Maybe even include the whole callchain in
the comment that's currently broken and needs fixing/removing.