From: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@parallels.com>
To: mhocko@suse.cz, akpm@linux-foundation.org
Cc: glommer@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, devel@openvz.org,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Subject: [PATCH RESEND 06/11] memcg, slab: fix races in per-memcg cache creation/destruction
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 12:44:57 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <75f6caa087d0e3e9a57eb30f7675c90ebdc08dab.1388996525.git.vdavydov@parallels.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cover.1388996525.git.vdavydov@parallels.com>
We obtain a per-memcg cache from a root kmem_cache by dereferencing an
entry of the root cache's memcg_params::memcg_caches array. If we find
no cache for a memcg there on allocation, we initiate the memcg cache
creation (see memcg_kmem_get_cache()). The cache creation proceeds
asynchronously in memcg_create_kmem_cache() in order to avoid lock
clashes, so there can be several threads trying to create the same
kmem_cache concurrently, but only one of them may succeed. However, due
to a race in the code, it is not always true. The point is that the
memcg_caches array can be relocated when we activate kmem accounting for
a memcg (see memcg_update_all_caches(), memcg_update_cache_size()). If
memcg_update_cache_size() and memcg_create_kmem_cache() proceed
concurrently as described below, we can leak a kmem_cache.
Asume two threads schedule creation of the same kmem_cache. One of them
successfully creates it. Another one should fail then, but if
memcg_create_kmem_cache() interleaves with memcg_update_cache_size() as
follows, it won't:
memcg_create_kmem_cache() memcg_update_cache_size()
(called w/o mutexes held) (called with slab_mutex,
set_limit_mutex held)
------------------------- -------------------------
mutex_lock(&memcg_cache_mutex)
s->memcg_params=kzalloc(...)
new_cachep=cache_from_memcg_idx(cachep,idx)
// new_cachep==NULL => proceed to creation
s->memcg_params->memcg_caches[i]
=cur_params->memcg_caches[i]
// kmem_cache_create_memcg takes slab_mutex
// so we will hang around until
// memcg_update_cache_size finishes, but
// nothing will prevent it from succeeding so
// memcg_caches[idx] will be overwritten in
// memcg_register_cache!
new_cachep = kmem_cache_create_memcg(...)
mutex_unlock(&memcg_cache_mutex)
Let's fix this by moving the check for existence of the memcg cache to
kmem_cache_create_memcg() to be called under the slab_mutex and make it
return NULL if so.
A similar race is possible when destroying a memcg cache (see
kmem_cache_destroy()). Since memcg_unregister_cache(), which clears the
pointer in the memcg_caches array, is called w/o protection, we can race
with memcg_update_cache_size() and omit clearing the pointer. Therefore
memcg_unregister_cache() should be moved before we release the
slab_mutex.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@parallels.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Cc: Glauber Costa <glommer@gmail.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>
Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
---
mm/memcontrol.c | 23 ++++++++++++++---------
mm/slab_common.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index d918626..56fc410 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -3228,6 +3228,12 @@ void memcg_register_cache(struct kmem_cache *s)
if (is_root_cache(s))
return;
+ /*
+ * Holding the slab_mutex assures nobody will touch the memcg_caches
+ * array while we are modifying it.
+ */
+ lockdep_assert_held(&slab_mutex);
+
root = s->memcg_params->root_cache;
memcg = s->memcg_params->memcg;
id = memcg_cache_id(memcg);
@@ -3247,6 +3253,7 @@ void memcg_register_cache(struct kmem_cache *s)
* before adding it to the memcg_slab_caches list, otherwise we can
* fail to convert memcg_params_to_cache() while traversing the list.
*/
+ VM_BUG_ON(root->memcg_params->memcg_caches[id]);
root->memcg_params->memcg_caches[id] = s;
mutex_lock(&memcg->slab_caches_mutex);
@@ -3263,6 +3270,12 @@ void memcg_unregister_cache(struct kmem_cache *s)
if (is_root_cache(s))
return;
+ /*
+ * Holding the slab_mutex assures nobody will touch the memcg_caches
+ * array while we are modifying it.
+ */
+ lockdep_assert_held(&slab_mutex);
+
root = s->memcg_params->root_cache;
memcg = s->memcg_params->memcg;
id = memcg_cache_id(memcg);
@@ -3276,6 +3289,7 @@ void memcg_unregister_cache(struct kmem_cache *s)
* after removing it from the memcg_slab_caches list, otherwise we can
* fail to convert memcg_params_to_cache() while traversing the list.
*/
+ VM_BUG_ON(!root->memcg_params->memcg_caches[id]);
root->memcg_params->memcg_caches[id] = NULL;
css_put(&memcg->css);
@@ -3428,22 +3442,13 @@ static struct kmem_cache *memcg_create_kmem_cache(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
struct kmem_cache *cachep)
{
struct kmem_cache *new_cachep;
- int idx;
BUG_ON(!memcg_can_account_kmem(memcg));
- idx = memcg_cache_id(memcg);
-
mutex_lock(&memcg_cache_mutex);
- new_cachep = cache_from_memcg_idx(cachep, idx);
- if (new_cachep)
- goto out;
-
new_cachep = kmem_cache_dup(memcg, cachep);
if (new_cachep == NULL)
new_cachep = cachep;
-
-out:
mutex_unlock(&memcg_cache_mutex);
return new_cachep;
}
diff --git a/mm/slab_common.c b/mm/slab_common.c
index db24ec4..f34707e 100644
--- a/mm/slab_common.c
+++ b/mm/slab_common.c
@@ -180,6 +180,18 @@ kmem_cache_create_memcg(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, const char *name, size_t size,
if (err)
goto out_unlock;
+ if (memcg) {
+ /*
+ * Since per-memcg caches are created asynchronously on first
+ * allocation (see memcg_kmem_get_cache()), several threads can
+ * try to create the same cache, but only one of them may
+ * succeed. Therefore if we get here and see the cache has
+ * already been created, we silently return NULL.
+ */
+ if (cache_from_memcg_idx(parent_cache, memcg_cache_id(memcg)))
+ goto out_unlock;
+ }
+
/*
* Some allocators will constraint the set of valid flags to a subset
* of all flags. We expect them to define CACHE_CREATE_MASK in this
@@ -261,11 +273,11 @@ void kmem_cache_destroy(struct kmem_cache *s)
list_del(&s->list);
if (!__kmem_cache_shutdown(s)) {
+ memcg_unregister_cache(s);
mutex_unlock(&slab_mutex);
if (s->flags & SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU)
rcu_barrier();
- memcg_unregister_cache(s);
memcg_free_cache_params(s);
kfree(s->name);
kmem_cache_free(kmem_cache, s);
--
1.7.10.4
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-01-06 8:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-01-06 8:44 [PATCH RESEND 00/11] kmemcg-fixes Vladimir Davydov
2014-01-06 8:44 ` [PATCH RESEND 01/11] slab: cleanup kmem_cache_create_memcg() error handling Vladimir Davydov
2014-01-06 8:44 ` [PATCH RESEND 02/11] memcg, slab: kmem_cache_create_memcg(): fix memleak on fail path Vladimir Davydov
2014-01-06 8:44 ` [PATCH RESEND 03/11] memcg, slab: cleanup memcg cache initialization/destruction Vladimir Davydov
2014-01-06 8:44 ` [PATCH RESEND 04/11] memcg, slab: fix barrier usage when accessing memcg_caches Vladimir Davydov
2014-01-06 8:44 ` [PATCH RESEND 05/11] memcg: fix possible NULL deref while traversing memcg_slab_caches list Vladimir Davydov
2014-01-06 8:44 ` Vladimir Davydov [this message]
2014-01-06 8:44 ` [PATCH RESEND 07/11] memcg: get rid of kmem_cache_dup Vladimir Davydov
2014-01-06 8:44 ` [PATCH RESEND 08/11] slab: do not panic if we fail to create memcg cache Vladimir Davydov
2014-01-06 8:45 ` [PATCH RESEND 09/11] memcg, slab: RCU protect memcg_params for root caches Vladimir Davydov
2014-01-06 8:45 ` [PATCH RESEND 10/11] memcg: remove KMEM_ACCOUNTED_ACTIVATED flag Vladimir Davydov
2014-01-06 8:45 ` [PATCH RESEND 11/11] memcg: rework memcg_update_kmem_limit synchronization Vladimir Davydov
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=75f6caa087d0e3e9a57eb30f7675c90ebdc08dab.1388996525.git.vdavydov@parallels.com \
--to=vdavydov@parallels.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bsingharora@gmail.com \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=devel@openvz.org \
--cc=glommer@gmail.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
--cc=penberg@kernel.org \
/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