From: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Warn mmput() from memory reclaim context.
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 12:45:41 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.23.453.2007161242370.3086260@chino.kir.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200716153034.4935-1-penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
On Fri, 17 Jul 2020, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> syzbot is reporting that mmput() from shrinker function has a risk of
> deadlock [1], for delayed_uprobe_add() from update_ref_ctr() calls
> kzalloc(GFP_KERNEL) with delayed_uprobe_lock held, and
> uprobe_clear_state() from __mmput() also holds delayed_uprobe_lock.
>
> However, it took 18 months to hit this race for the third time, for
> mmput() invokes __mmput() only when ->mm_users dropped to 0. If we
> always warn like might_sleep(), we can detect the possibility of
> deadlock more easier.
>
> For now, I inlined the check under CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING. If we find
> more locations, we could introduce a macro like might_sleep().
>
Hi Tetsuo,
It looks like this is one issue where mmput() interacted poorly while in
direct reclaim because of a uprobes issue, I'm not sure that we can make a
generalization that mmput() is *always* problematic when PF_MEMALLOC is
set. I'm also mindful of the (ab)use of PF_MEMALLOC outside just the
direct reclaim path. Or maybe there is a way you can show that mmput()
while PF_MEMALLOC is set is always concerning?
> [1] https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=bc9e7303f537c41b2b0cc2dfcea3fc42964c2d45
>
I wasn't familiar with this particular report, but it seems like the fix
is simply to do the kzalloc() before taking delayed_uprobe_lock and
freeing it if delayed_uprobe_check() already finds one for that uprobe?
> Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
> ---
> kernel/fork.c | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
> index efc5493203ae..8717ce50ff0d 100644
> --- a/kernel/fork.c
> +++ b/kernel/fork.c
> @@ -1109,6 +1109,10 @@ static inline void __mmput(struct mm_struct *mm)
> void mmput(struct mm_struct *mm)
> {
> might_sleep();
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
> + /* Calling mmput() from shrinker context can deadlock. */
> + WARN_ON(current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC);
> +#endif
>
> if (atomic_dec_and_test(&mm->mm_users))
> __mmput(mm);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-16 19:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-16 15:30 Tetsuo Handa
2020-07-16 19:45 ` David Rientjes [this message]
2020-07-16 22:04 ` Tetsuo Handa
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=alpine.DEB.2.23.453.2007161242370.3086260@chino.kir.corp.google.com \
--to=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
/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