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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 2 Nov 2023 10:17:03 +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 2, 2023, at 01:44, Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 8:07 PM Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 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().
>> 
> 
> Ohhh that is subtle. Thanks for pointing this out, Muchun!
> 
> In that case, I think Yosry is right after all! We don't even need to get
> a reference to the memcg:
> 
> rcu_read_lock();
> memcg = obj_cgroup_memcg(objcg);
> list_lru_add();
> rcu_read_unlock();
> 
> As long as we're inside this rcu section, we're guaranteed to get
> an un-freed memcg. Now it could be offlined etc., but as Muchun has

Right.

Thanks.

> pointed out, the list_lru_add() call will still does the right thing - it will
> either add the new entry to the parent list if this happens after the
> kmemcg_id update, or the child list before the list_lru reparenting
> action. Both of these scenarios are fine.
> 
>> 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).