linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 5/6] memcg-v1: no need for memcg locking for MGLRU

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: <CAOUHufbA6GN=k3baYdvLN_xSQvX0UgA7OCeqT8TsWLEW7o=y9w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2024 15:04:13 -0700
From: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, 
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>, 
	Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, 
	Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Meta kernel team <kernel-team@...a.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 5/6] memcg-v1: no need for memcg locking for MGLRU

On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 2:38 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 10:30:29 -0700 Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Oct 26, 2024 at 09:26:04AM -0600, Yu Zhao wrote:
> > > On Sat, Oct 26, 2024 at 12:34 AM Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 06:23:02PM GMT, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > > > > While updating the generation of the folios, MGLRU requires that the
> > > > > folio's memcg association remains stable. With the charge migration
> > > > > deprecated, there is no need for MGLRU to acquire locks to keep the
> > > > > folio and memcg association stable.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>
> > > >
> > > > Andrew, can you please apply the following fix to this patch after your
> > > > unused fixup?
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> >
> > syzbot caught the following:
> >
> >   WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 85 at mm/vmscan.c:3140 folio_update_gen+0x23d/0x250 mm/vmscan.c:3140
> >   ...
> >
> > Andrew, can you please fix this in place?
>
> OK, but...
>
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -3138,7 +3138,6 @@ static int folio_update_gen(struct folio *folio, int gen)
> >       unsigned long new_flags, old_flags = READ_ONCE(folio->flags);
> >
> >       VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(gen >= MAX_NR_GENS);
> > -     VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held());
> >
> >       do {
> >               /* lru_gen_del_folio() has isolated this page? */
>
> it would be good to know why this assertion is considered incorrect?

The assertion was caused by the patch in this thread. It used to
assert that a folio must be protected from charge migration. Charge
migration is removed by this series, and as part of the effort, this
patch removes the RCU lock.

> And a link to the sysbot report?

https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=24f45b8beab9788e467e