netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 05/15] bpf: Fix incorrect mem_cgroup

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: <CALOAHbCXfRKDEt7jsUBsf-pQ-A7TpXPxGKYxu_GZN-8BUe2auw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 12 Aug 2022 08:27:09 +0800
From:   Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>
To:     Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Martin Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        john fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
        Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, jolsa@...nel.org,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 05/15] bpf: Fix incorrect mem_cgroup_put

On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 11:47 PM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 10:49:13AM +0800, Yafang Shao wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 1:07 AM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 03:18:30PM +0000, Yafang Shao wrote:
> > > > The memcg may be the root_mem_cgroup, in which case we shouldn't put it.
> > >
> > > No, it is ok to put root_mem_cgroup. css_put already handles the root
> > > cgroups.
> > >
> >
> > Ah, this commit log doesn't describe the issue clearly. I should improve it.
> > The issue is that in bpf_map_get_memcg() it doesn't get the objcg if
> > map->objcg is NULL (that can happen if the map belongs to the root
> > memcg), so we shouldn't put the objcg if map->objcg is NULL neither in
> > bpf_map_put_memcg().
>
> Sorry I am still not understanding. We are not 'getting' objcg in
> bpf_map_get_memcg(). We are 'getting' memcg from map->objcg and if that
> is NULL the function is returning root memcg and putting root memcg is
> totally fine.

When the map belongs to root_mem_cgroup, the map->objcg is NULL, right ?
See also bpf_map_save_memcg() and it describes clearly in the comment -

static void bpf_map_save_memcg(struct bpf_map *map)
{
        /* Currently if a map is created by a process belonging to the root
         * memory cgroup, get_obj_cgroup_from_current() will return NULL.
         * So we have to check map->objcg for being NULL each time it's
         * being used.
         */
        map->objcg = get_obj_cgroup_from_current();
}

So for the root_mem_cgroup case, bpf_map_get_memcg() will return
root_mem_cgroup directly without getting its css, right ? See below,

static struct mem_cgroup *bpf_map_get_memcg(const struct bpf_map *map)
{

        if (map->objcg)
                return get_mem_cgroup_from_objcg(map->objcg);

        return root_mem_cgroup;   // without css_get(&memcg->css);
}

But it will put the css unconditionally.  See below,

memcg = bpf_map_get_memcg(map);
...
mem_cgroup_put(memcg);

So we should put it *conditionally* as well.

  memcg = bpf_map_get_memcg(map);
   ...
+ if (map->objcg)
       mem_cgroup_put(memcg);

Is it clear to you ?

> Or are you saying that root_mem_cgroup is NULL?
>

No

-- 
Regards
Yafang