netdev - Re: [RFC net] Should sk_page_frag() also look at the current GFP context?

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]

Date:   Thu, 07 Jul 2022 11:31:16 -0400
From:   "Benjamin Coddington" <bcodding@...hat.com>
To:     "Guillaume Nault" <gnault@...hat.com>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "Paolo Abeni" <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        "Chuck Lever" <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
        "Jeff Layton" <jlayton@...nel.org>,
        "Trond Myklebust" <trond.myklebust@...merspace.com>,
        "Anna Schumaker" <anna@...nel.org>,
        "Steve French" <sfrench@...ba.org>,
        "Josef Bacik" <josef@...icpanda.com>,
        "Scott Mayhew" <smayhew@...hat.com>, "Tejun Heo" <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC net] Should sk_page_frag() also look at the current GFP
 context?

On 1 Jul 2022, at 14:41, Guillaume Nault wrote:

> I'm investigating a kernel oops that looks similar to
> 20eb4f29b602 ("net: fix sk_page_frag() recursion from memory reclaim")
> and dacb5d8875cc ("tcp: fix page frag corruption on page fault").
>
> This time the problem happens on an NFS client, while the previous bzs
> respectively used NBD and CIFS. While NBD and CIFS clear __GFP_FS in
> their socket's ->sk_allocation field (using GFP_NOIO or GFP_NOFS), NFS
> leaves sk_allocation to its default value since commit a1231fda7e94
> ("SUNRPC: Set memalloc_nofs_save() on all rpciod/xprtiod jobs").
>
> To recap the original problems, in commit 20eb4f29b602 and 
> dacb5d8875cc,
> memory reclaim happened while executing tcp_sendmsg_locked(). The code
> path entered tcp_sendmsg_locked() recursively as pages to be reclaimed
> were backed by files on the network. The problem was that both the
> outer and the inner tcp_sendmsg_locked() calls used 
> current->task_frag,
> thus leaving it in an inconsistent state. The fix was to use the
> socket's ->sk_frag instead for the file system socket, so that the
> inner and outer calls wouln't step on each other's toes.
>
> But now that NFS doesn't modify ->sk_allocation anymore, 
> sk_page_frag()
> sees sunrpc sockets as plain TCP ones and returns ->task_frag in the
> inner tcp_sendmsg_locked() call.
>
> Also it looks like the trend is to avoid GFS_NOFS and GFP_NOIO and use
> memalloc_no{fs,io}_save() instead. So maybe other network file systems
> will also stop setting ->sk_allocation in the future and we should
> teach sk_page_frag() to look at the current GFP flags. Or should we
> stick to ->sk_allocation and make NFS drop __GFP_FS again?

We need this fix in NFS.

I think we should try to get the other filesystems to move toward
memalloc_nofs_save() as per:
Documentation/core-api/gfp_mask-from-fs-io.rst

So this looks like the right fix to me and I think if you resend it 
without
the RFC and and question in the subject, it would get picked up.

Reviewed-by: Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@...hat.com>

Ben

>
> Signed-off-by: Guillaume Nault <gnault@...hat.com>
> ---
>  include/net/sock.h | 8 ++++++--
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/net/sock.h b/include/net/sock.h
> index 72ca97ccb460..b934c9851058 100644
> --- a/include/net/sock.h
> +++ b/include/net/sock.h
> @@ -46,6 +46,7 @@
>  #include <linux/netdevice.h>
>  #include <linux/skbuff.h>	/* struct sk_buff */
>  #include <linux/mm.h>
> +#include <linux/sched/mm.h>
>  #include <linux/security.h>
>  #include <linux/slab.h>
>  #include <linux/uaccess.h>
> @@ -2503,14 +2504,17 @@ static inline void 
> sk_stream_moderate_sndbuf(struct sock *sk)
>   * socket operations and end up recursing into sk_page_frag()
>   * while it's already in use: explicitly avoid task page_frag
>   * usage if the caller is potentially doing any of them.
> - * This assumes that page fault handlers use the GFP_NOFS flags.
> + * This assumes that page fault handlers use the GFP_NOFS flags
> + * or run under memalloc_nofs_save() protection.
>   *
>   * Return: a per task page_frag if context allows that,
>   * otherwise a per socket one.
>   */
>  static inline struct page_frag *sk_page_frag(struct sock *sk)
>  {
> -	if ((sk->sk_allocation & (__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM | __GFP_MEMALLOC | 
> __GFP_FS)) ==
> +	gfp_t gfp_mask = current_gfp_context(sk->sk_allocation);
> +
> +	if ((gfp_mask & (__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM | __GFP_MEMALLOC | __GFP_FS)) 
> ==
>  	    (__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM | __GFP_FS))
>  		return &current->task_frag;
>
> -- 
> 2.21.3

This seems like th