linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] memcg: skip cgroup_file

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: <uvm7vru6ulfakmy4qb5slq2ee7dgiuis2aei3vdyu4nk4pyubh@noc2gep35huh>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2025 16:57:56 -0700
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: 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>, 
	Peilin Ye <yepeilin@...gle.com>, 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>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] memcg: skip cgroup_file_notify if spinning is not
 allowed

On Mon, Sep 22, 2025 at 04:43:28PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 16:22:57 -0700 Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev> wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > > > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > > @@ -2307,12 +2307,13 @@ static int try_charge_memcg(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> > > >  	bool drained = false;
> > > >  	bool raised_max_event = false;
> > > >  	unsigned long pflags;
> > > > +	bool allow_spinning = gfpflags_allow_spinning(gfp_mask);
> > > >  
> > > 
> > > Does this affect only the problematic call chain which you have
> > > identified, or might other callers be undesirably affected?
> > 
> > It will only affect the call chain which can not spin due to possibly
> > NMI context and at the moment only bpf programs can cause that.
> 
> "possibly" NMI context? 

NMI is one source which can cause recursive context but bpf programs
attached to specific call chains can also cause this recursion. For
example in [1], a bpf program related to sched_ext was called with
scheduler locks held and then that program made a memcg charged
allocation which can potentially call cgroup_file_notify(). The
notification call chain again tries to grab scheduler locks and
potentially causing deadlocks.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250905061919.439648-1-yepeilin@google.com/

> Is it possible that a bpf caller which could
> have taken locks will now skip the notifications?  Or do the gfp_flags
> get propagated all the way through?

The bpf programs which might be called/triggerd in a context where
spinning on a lock might not be safe, will skip the notifications. The
gfp_flags are plugged through. Basically we have kmalloc_nolock()
interfaces coming up which will make sure the correct gfp flags are
passed through.