linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] memcg: nmi-safe kmem charging

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <mzrsx4x5xluljyxy5h5ha6kijcno3ormac3sobc3k7bkj5wepr@cuz2fluc5m5d>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 12:12:48 -0700
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, 
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, 
	Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>, Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>, 
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>, 
	bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Meta kernel team <kernel-team@...a.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] memcg: nmi-safe kmem charging

I forgot to CC Tejun, so doing it now.

On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 05:56:09PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 5/10/25 01:28, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > BPF programs can trigger memcg charged kernel allocations in nmi
> > context. However memcg charging infra for kernel memory is not equipped
> > to handle nmi context. This series adds support for kernel memory
> > charging for nmi context.
> > 
> > The initial prototype tried to make memcg charging infra for kernel
> > memory re-entrant against irq and nmi. However upon realizing that
> > this_cpu_* operations are not safe on all architectures (Tejun), this
> 
> I assume it was an off-list discussion?
> Could we avoid this for the architectures where these are safe, which should
> be the major ones I hope?

Yes it was an off-list discussion. The discussion was more about the
this_cpu_* ops vs atomic_* ops as on x86 this_cpu_* does not have lock
prefix and how I should prefer this_cpu_* over atomic_* for my series on
objcg charging without disabling irqs. Tejun pointed out this_cpu_* are
not nmi safe for some archs and it would be better to handle nmi context
separately. So, I am not that worried about optimizing for NMI context
but your next comment on generic_atomic64_* ops is giving me headache.

> 
> > series took a different approach targeting only nmi context. Since the
> > number of stats that are updated in kernel memory charging path are 3,
> > this series added special handling of those stats in nmi context rather
> > than making all >100 memcg stats nmi safe.
> 
> Hmm so from patches 2 and 3 I see this relies on atomic64_add().
> But AFAIU lib/atomic64.c has the generic fallback implementation for
> architectures that don't know better, and that would be using the "void
> generic_atomic64_##op" macro, which AFAICS is doing:
> 
>         local_irq_save(flags);                                          \
>         arch_spin_lock(lock);                                           \
>         v->counter c_op a;                                              \
>         arch_spin_unlock(lock);                                         \
>         local_irq_restore(flags);                                       \
> 
> so in case of a nmi hitting after the spin_lock this can still deadlock?
> 
> Hm or is there some assumption that we only use these paths when already
> in_nmi() and then another nmi can't come in that context?
> 
> But even then, flush_nmi_stats() in patch 1 isn't done in_nmi() and uses
> atomic64_xchg() which in generic_atomic64_xchg() implementation also has the
> irq_save+spin_lock. So can't we deadlock there?

I was actually assuming that atomic_* ops are safe against nmis for all
archs. I looked at atomic_* ops in include/asm-generic/atomic.h and it
is using arch_cmpxchg() for CONFIG_SMP and it seems like for archs with
cmpxchg should be fine against nmi. I am not sure why atomic64_* are not
using arch_cmpxchg() instead. I will dig more.

I also have the followup series on objcg charging without irq almost
ready. I will send it out as rfc soon.

Thanks a lot for awesome and insightful comments.
Shakeel