linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] zswap: make shrinking memcg-aware

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: <B0D87683-DD13-4787-8188-98CEBF561B99@linux.dev>
Date:   Wed, 1 Nov 2023 11:06:26 +0800
From:   Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>
To:     Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        cerasuolodomenico@...il.com, Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>,
        sjenning@...hat.com, ddstreet@...e.org, vitaly.wool@...sulko.com,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        kernel-team@...a.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] zswap: make shrinking memcg-aware



> On Nov 1, 2023, at 09:26, Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> cc-ing Johannes, Roman, Shakeel, Muchun since you all know much more
> about memory controller + list_lru reparenting logic than me.
> 
> There seems to be a race between memcg offlining and zswap’s
> cgroup-aware LRU implementation:
> 
> CPU0                            CPU1
> zswap_lru_add()                 mem_cgroup_css_offline()
>    get_mem_cgroup_from_objcg()
>                                    memcg_offline_kmem()
>                                        memcg_reparent_objcgs()
>                                        memcg_reparent_list_lrus()
>                                            memcg_reparent_list_lru()
>                                                memcg_reparent_list_lru_node()
>    list_lru_add()
>                                                memcg_list_lru_free()
> 
> 
> Essentially: on CPU0, zswap gets the memcg from the entry's objcg
> (before the objcgs are reparented). Then it performs list_lru_add()
> after the list_lru entries reparenting (memcg_reparent_list_lru_node())
> step. If the list_lru of the memcg being offlined has not been freed
> (i.e before the memcg_list_lru_free() call), then the list_lru_add()
> call would succeed - but the list will be freed soon after. The new

No worries.  list_lru_add() will add the object to the lru list of
the parent of the memcg being offlined, because the ->kmemcg_id of the
memcg being offlined will be changed to its parent's ->kmemcg_id before memcg_reparent_list_lru().

Muchun,
Thanks

> zswap entry as a result will not be subjected to future reclaim
> attempt. IOW, this list_lru_add() call is effectively swallowed. And
> worse, there might be a crash when we invalidate the zswap_entry in the
> future (which will perform a list_lru removal).
> 
> Within get_mem_cgroup_from_objcg(), none of the following seem
> sufficient to prevent this race:
> 
>    1. Perform the objcg-to-memcg lookup inside a rcu_read_lock()
>    section.
>    2. Checking if the memcg is freed yet (with css_tryget()) (what
>    we're currently doing in this patch series).
>    3. Checking if the memcg is still online (with css_tryget_online())
>    The memcg can still be offlined down the line.
> 
> 
> I've discussed this privately with Johannes, and it seems like the
> cleanest solution here is to move the reparenting logic down to release
> stage. That way, when get_mem_cgroup_from_objcg() returns,
> zswap_lru_add() is given an memcg that is reparenting-safe (until we
> drop the obtained reference).