netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net-memcg: pass in gfp_t mask to mem_cgroup_charge

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: <20221012173825.45d6fbf2@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:38:25 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
Cc:     Wei Wang <weiwan@...gle.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net-memcg: pass in gfp_t mask to
 mem_cgroup_charge_skmem()

On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:17:38 -0700 Shakeel Butt wrote:
> Did the revert of this patch fix the issue you are seeing? The reason
> I am asking is because this patch should not change the behavior.
> Actually someone else reported the similar issue for UDP RX at [1] and
> they tested the revert as well. The revert did not fix the issue for
> them.
> 
> Wei has a better explanation at [2] why this patch is not the cause
> for these issues.

We're talking TCP here, to be clear. I haven't tested a revert, yet (not
that easy to test with a real workload) but I'm relatively confident the
change did introduce an "unforced" call, specifically this bit:

@@ -2728,10 +2728,12 @@ int __sk_mem_raise_allocated(struct sock *sk, int size, int amt, int kind)
 {
 	struct proto *prot = sk->sk_prot;
 	long allocated = sk_memory_allocated_add(sk, amt);
+	bool memcg_charge = mem_cgroup_sockets_enabled && sk->sk_memcg;
 	bool charged = true;
 
-	if (mem_cgroup_sockets_enabled && sk->sk_memcg &&
-	    !(charged = mem_cgroup_charge_skmem(sk->sk_memcg, amt)))
+	if (memcg_charge &&
+	    !(charged = mem_cgroup_charge_skmem(sk->sk_memcg, amt,
+						gfp_memcg_charge())))

where gfp_memcg_charge() is GFP_NOWAIT in softirq.

The above gets called from (inverted stack):
 tcp_data_queue()
 tcp_try_rmem_schedule(sk, skb, skb->truesize)
 tcp_try_rmem_schedule()
 sk_rmem_schedule()
 __sk_mem_schedule()
 __sk_mem_raise_allocated()

Is my confidence unjustified? :)