From: Rongwei Wang <rongwei.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
To: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, slub: restrict sysfs validation to debug caches and make it safe
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2022 18:07:42 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5f480314-c1f8-1b66-069b-ae0441c263a0@linux.alibaba.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YuZA3vHXETJ8IRin@hyeyoo>
On 7/31/22 4:44 PM, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 08:29:09PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> Rongwei Wang reports [1] that cache validation triggered by writing to
>> /sys/kernel/slab/<cache>/validate is racy against normal cache
>> operations (e.g. freeing) in a way that can cause false positive
>> inconsistency reports for caches with debugging enabled. The problem is
>> that debugging actions that mark object free or active and actual
>> freelist operations are not atomic, and the validation can see an
>> inconsistent state.
>>
>> For caches that do or don't have debugging enabled, additional races
>> regarding n->nr_slabs are possible that result in false reports of wrong
>> slab counts.
>>
>> This patch attempts to solve these issues while not adding overhead to
>> normal (especially fastpath) operations for caches that do not have
>> debugging enabled, just to make possible userspace-triggered validation
>> safe. Instead, disable the validation for caches that don't have
>> debugging enabled and make the sysfs handler return -EINVAL.
>>
>> For caches that do have debugging enabled, we can instead extend the
>> existing approach of not using percpu freelists to force all operations
>> to the slow paths where debugging is checked for and processed.
>>
>> The processing on free in free_debug_processing() already happens under
>> n->list_lock and slab_lock() so we can extend it to actually do the
>> freeing as well and thus make it atomic against concurrent validation.
>>
>> The processing on alloc in alloc_debug_processing() currently doesn't
>> take any locks, but we have to first allocate the object from a slab on
>> the partial list (as percpu slabs are always non-existent) and thus take
>> the n->list_lock anyway. Add a function alloc_single_from_partial() that
>> additionally takes slab_lock() for the debug processing and then grabs
>> just the allocated object instead of the whole freelist. This again
>> makes it atomic against validation and it is also ultimately more
>> efficient than the current grabbing of freelist immediately followed by
>> slab deactivation.
>>
>> To prevent races on n->nr_slabs, make sure that for caches with
>> debugging enabled, inc_slabs_node() or dec_slabs_node() is called under
>> n->list_lock. When allocating a new slab for a debug cache, handle the
>> allocation by a new function alloc_single_from_new_slab() instead of the
>> current forced deactivation path.
>>
>> Neither of these changes affect the fast paths.
>>
>> The function free_debug_processing() is moved so that it is placed
>> later than the definitions of add_partial(), remove_partial() and
>> discard_slab(), to avoid a need for forward declarations.
>>
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220529081535.69275-1-rongwei.wang@linux.alibaba.com/
>>
>> Reported-by: Rongwei Wang <rongwei.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
>> ---
>> Hi, this extends the pre-RFC from [1] to cover also racy n->nr_slab updates
>> and hopefully thus addresses everything that Rongwei's series did, and
>> testing will show that?
>> Thanks, Vlastimil
>>
>
> I don't care whose patch to ACK.
> Maybe Rongwei will post his own patch?
Hi Hyeonggon
Vlastimil's method is better than me, and it looks good to me. I will
not continue to post my patch.
-wrw
>
> Anyway, this patch overall looks good.
>
> Also all issues (as far as I know) related to validate attribute
> as gone after this patch.
>
> Silly question:
> Do we want to apply on stable trees?
> I doubt someone would use validate attribute when not debugging.
>
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/69462916-2d1c-dd50-2e64-b31c2b61690e@suse.cz/
>>
>> mm/slub.c | 322 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
>> 1 file changed, 231 insertions(+), 91 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
>> index b1281b8654bd..01e5228809d7 100644
>> --- a/mm/slub.c
>> +++ b/mm/slub.c
>> @@ -1324,17 +1324,14 @@ static inline int alloc_consistency_checks(struct kmem_cache *s,
>> }
>
> [...]
>
>> +/*
>> + * Called only for kmem_cache_debug() caches instead of acquire_slab(), with a
>> + * slab from the n->partial list. Removes only a single object from the slab
>> + * under slab_lock(), does the alloc_debug_processing() checks and leaves the
>> + * slab on the list, or moves it to full list if it was the last object.
>> + */
>> +static void *alloc_single_from_partial(struct kmem_cache *s,
>> + struct kmem_cache_node *n, struct slab *slab)
>> +{
>> + void *object;
>> + unsigned long flags;
>> +
>> + lockdep_assert_held(&n->list_lock);
>> +
>> + slab_lock(slab, &flags);
>> +
>> + object = slab->freelist;
>> + slab->freelist = get_freepointer(s, object);
>> + slab->inuse++;
>> +
>> + if (!alloc_debug_processing(s, slab, object)) {
>> + remove_partial(n, slab);
>> + slab_unlock(slab, &flags);
>> + return NULL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (slab->inuse == slab->objects) {
>> + remove_partial(n, slab);
>> + add_full(s, n, slab);
>> + }
>> +
>> + slab_unlock(slab, &flags);
>
> AFAIK add_full/remove_full/add_partial/remove_partial
> can be called outside slab_lock but inside list_lock.
>
>> + return object;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Called only for kmem_cache_debug() caches to allocate from a freshly
>> + * allocated slab. Allocates a single object instead of whole freelist
>> + * and puts the slab to the partial (or full) list.
>> + */
>> +static void *alloc_single_from_new_slab(struct kmem_cache *s,
>> + struct slab *slab)
>> +{
>> + int nid = slab_nid(slab);
>> + struct kmem_cache_node *n = get_node(s, nid);
>> + unsigned long flags, flags2;
>> + void *object;
>> +
>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&n->list_lock, flags);
>> + slab_lock(slab, &flags2);
>> +
>> + object = slab->freelist;
>> + slab->freelist = get_freepointer(s, object);
>> + /* Undo what allocate_slab() did */
>> + slab->frozen = 0;
>> + slab->inuse = 1;
>
> Maybe do it in allocate_slab()?
>
>> + if (!alloc_debug_processing(s, slab, object)) {
>> + /*
>> + * It's not really expected that this would fail on a
>> + * freshly allocated slab, but a concurrent memory
>> + * corruption in theory could cause that.
>> + */
>> + slab_unlock(slab, &flags2);
>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&n->list_lock, flags);
>> + return NULL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (slab->inuse == slab->objects)
>> + add_full(s, n, slab);
>> + else
>> + add_partial(n, slab, DEACTIVATE_TO_HEAD);
>> +
>> + slab_unlock(slab, &flags2);
>> + inc_slabs_node(s, nid, slab->objects);
>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&n->list_lock, flags);
>> +
>> + return object;
>> +}
>
> [...]
>
>> #endif /* CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG */
>>
>> #if defined(CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG) || defined(CONFIG_SYSFS)
>> @@ -3036,6 +3165,20 @@ static void *___slab_alloc(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t gfpflags, int node,
>> return NULL;
>> }
>>
>> + stat(s, ALLOC_SLAB);
>> +
>> + if (kmem_cache_debug(s)) {
>> + freelist = alloc_single_from_new_slab(s, slab);
>> +
>> + if (unlikely(!freelist))
>> + goto new_objects;
>> +
>> + if (s->flags & SLAB_STORE_USER)
>> + set_track(s, freelist, TRACK_ALLOC, addr);
>> +
>> + return freelist;
>> + }
>> +
>> /*
>> * No other reference to the slab yet so we can
>> * muck around with it freely without cmpxchg
>> @@ -3043,29 +3186,29 @@ static void *___slab_alloc(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t gfpflags, int node,
>> freelist = slab->freelist;
>> slab->freelist = NULL;
>>
>> - stat(s, ALLOC_SLAB);
>> + inc_slabs_node(s, slab_nid(slab), slab->objects);
>>
>> check_new_slab:
>>
>> if (kmem_cache_debug(s)) {
>> - if (!alloc_debug_processing(s, slab, freelist, addr)) {
>> - /* Slab failed checks. Next slab needed */
>> - goto new_slab;
>> - } else {
>> - /*
>> - * For debug case, we don't load freelist so that all
>> - * allocations go through alloc_debug_processing()
>> - */
>> - goto return_single;
>> - }
>> + /*
>> + * For debug caches here we had to go through
>> + * alloc_single_from_partial() so just store the tracking info
>> + * and return the object
>> + */
>> + if (s->flags & SLAB_STORE_USER)
>> + set_track(s, freelist, TRACK_ALLOC, addr);
>> + return freelist;
>> }
>>
>> - if (unlikely(!pfmemalloc_match(slab, gfpflags)))
>> + if (unlikely(!pfmemalloc_match(slab, gfpflags))) {
>> /*
>> * For !pfmemalloc_match() case we don't load freelist so that
>> * we don't make further mismatched allocations easier.
>> */
>> - goto return_single;
>> + deactivate_slab(s, slab, get_freepointer(s, freelist));
>> + return freelist;
>> + }
>
>
>
>>
>> retry_load_slab:
>>
>> @@ -3089,11 +3232,6 @@ static void *___slab_alloc(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t gfpflags, int node,
>> c->slab = slab;
>>
>> goto load_freelist;
>> -
>> -return_single:
>> -
>> - deactivate_slab(s, slab, get_freepointer(s, freelist));
>> - return freelist;
>> }
>>
>> /*
>> @@ -3341,9 +3479,10 @@ static void __slab_free(struct kmem_cache *s, struct slab *slab,
>> if (kfence_free(head))
>> return;
>>
>> - if (kmem_cache_debug(s) &&
>> - !free_debug_processing(s, slab, head, tail, cnt, addr))
>> + if (kmem_cache_debug(s)) {
>> + free_debug_processing(s, slab, head, tail, cnt, addr);
>> return;
>> + }
>
> Oh, now debugging caches does not share free path with non-debugging
> caches.
>
> Now free_debug_processing's return type can be void?
>
>>
>> do {
>> if (unlikely(n)) {
>> @@ -3958,6 +4097,7 @@ static void early_kmem_cache_node_alloc(int node)
>> slab = new_slab(kmem_cache_node, GFP_NOWAIT, node);
>>
>> BUG_ON(!slab);
>> + inc_slabs_node(kmem_cache_node, slab_nid(slab), slab->objects);
>> if (slab_nid(slab) != node) {
>> pr_err("SLUB: Unable to allocate memory from node %d\n", node);
>> pr_err("SLUB: Allocating a useless per node structure in order to be able to continue\n");
>> @@ -5625,7 +5765,7 @@ static ssize_t validate_store(struct kmem_cache *s,
>> {
>> int ret = -EINVAL;
>>
>> - if (buf[0] == '1') {
>> + if (buf[0] == '1' && kmem_cache_debug(s)) {
>> ret = validate_slab_cache(s);
>> if (ret >= 0)
>> ret = length;
>
> Yeah definitely this is what it should be,
> instead of serializing inc_slabs_node()/dec_slabs_node()
> for non-debugging caches.
>
>> --
>> 2.37.1
>>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-07-31 10:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-07-27 18:29 Vlastimil Babka
2022-07-31 8:44 ` Hyeonggon Yoo
2022-07-31 10:07 ` Rongwei Wang [this message]
2022-08-01 13:51 ` Vlastimil Babka
2022-08-02 2:47 ` Hyeonggon Yoo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5f480314-c1f8-1b66-069b-ae0441c263a0@linux.alibaba.com \
--to=rongwei.wang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=42.hyeyoo@gmail.com \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
--cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=penberg@kernel.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox