linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] memcg: skip cgroup_file_notify if spinning is not allowed

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: <ukh4fh3xsahsff62siwgsa3o5k7mjv3xs6j3u2ymdkvgpzagqf@jfrd7uwbacld>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2025 14:33:16 -0700
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>
To: Peilin Ye <yepeilin@...gle.com>
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>, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>, 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] memcg: skip cgroup_file_notify if spinning is not allowed

On Fri, Sep 05, 2025 at 08:48:46PM +0000, Peilin Ye wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2025 at 01:16:06PM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > Generally memcg charging is allowed from all the contexts including NMI
> > where even spinning on spinlock can cause locking issues. However one
> > call chain was missed during the addition of memcg charging from any
> > context support. That is try_charge_memcg() -> memcg_memory_event() ->
> > cgroup_file_notify().
> > 
> > The possible function call tree under cgroup_file_notify() can acquire
> > many different spin locks in spinning mode. Some of them are
> > cgroup_file_kn_lock, kernfs_notify_lock, pool_workqeue's lock. So, let's
> > just skip cgroup_file_notify() from memcg charging if the context does
> > not allow spinning.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>
> 
> Tested-by: Peilin Ye <yepeilin@...gle.com>

Thanks Peilin. When you post the official patch for __GFP_HIGH in
__bpf_async_init(), please add a comment on why __GFP_HIGH is used
instead of GFP_ATOMIC.

> 
> The repro described in [1] no longer triggers locking issues after
> applying this patch and making __bpf_async_init() use __GFP_HIGH
> instead of GFP_ATOMIC:
> 
> --- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> @@ -1275,7 +1275,7 @@ static int __bpf_async_init(struct bpf_async_kern *async, struct bpf_map *map, u
>         }
> 
>         /* allocate hrtimer via map_kmalloc to use memcg accounting */
> -       cb = bpf_map_kmalloc_node(map, size, GFP_ATOMIC, map->numa_node);
> +       cb = bpf_map_kmalloc_node(map, size, __GFP_HIGH, map->numa_node);
>         if (!cb) {
>                 ret = -ENOMEM;
>                 goto out;
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20250905061919.439648-1-yepeilin@google.com/#t
> 
> Thanks,
> Peilin Ye
>