From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To: "Kohli, Gaurav" <gkohli@codeaurora.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, mhocko@suse.com,
kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, aarcange@redhat.com,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: oom: Fix race condition between oom_badness and do_exit of task
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 23:05:33 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d73682f9-f214-64c4-ce09-fd1ff3ffe252@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <22ebd655-ece4-37e5-5a98-e9750cb20665@codeaurora.org>
On 2018/03/08 13:51, Kohli, Gaurav wrote:
> On 3/8/2018 2:26 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Gaurav Kohli wrote:
>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
>>> index 6fd9773..5f4cc4b 100644
>>> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
>>> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
>>> @@ -114,9 +114,11 @@ struct task_struct *find_lock_task_mm(struct task_struct *p)
>>> A A A A A A for_each_thread(p, t) {
>>> A A A A A A A A A task_lock(t);
>>> +A A A A A A A get_task_struct(t);
>>> A A A A A A A A A if (likely(t->mm))
>>> A A A A A A A A A A A A A goto found;
>>> A A A A A A A A A task_unlock(t);
>>> +A A A A A A A put_task_struct(t);
>>> A A A A A }
>>> A A A A A t = NULL;
>>> A found:
>> We hold rcu_read_lock() here, so perhaps only do get_task_struct() before
>> doing rcu_read_unlock() and we have a non-NULL t?
>
> Here rcu_read_lock will not help, as our task may change due to below algo:
>
> for_each_thread(p, t) {
> A A A A A A A A task_lock(t);
> +A A A A A A A get_task_struct(t);
> A A A A A A A A if (likely(t->mm))
> A A A A A A A A A A A A goto found;
> A A A A A A A A task_unlock(t);
> +A A A A A A A put_task_struct(t)
>
>
> So only we can increase usage counter here only at the current task.
static int proc_single_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
{
struct inode *inode = m->private;
struct pid_namespace *ns;
struct pid *pid;
struct task_struct *task;
int ret;
ns = inode->i_sb->s_fs_info;
pid = proc_pid(inode);
task = get_pid_task(pid, PIDTYPE_PID); /* get_task_struct() is called upon success. */
if (!task)
return -ESRCH;
ret = PROC_I(inode)->op.proc_show(m, ns, pid, task);
put_task_struct(task);
return ret;
}
static int proc_oom_score(struct seq_file *m, struct pid_namespace *ns,
struct pid *pid, struct task_struct *task)
{
unsigned long totalpages = totalram_pages + total_swap_pages;
unsigned long points = 0;
points = oom_badness(task, NULL, NULL, totalpages) *
1000 / totalpages; /* task->usage > 0 due to proc_single_show() */
seq_printf(m, "%lu\n", points);
return 0;
}
struct task_struct *find_lock_task_mm(struct task_struct *p) /* p->usage > 0 */
{
struct task_struct *t;
rcu_read_lock();
for_each_thread(p, t) {
task_lock(t);
if (likely(t->mm))
goto found;
task_unlock(t);
}
t = NULL;
found:
rcu_read_unlock();
return t; /* t->usage > 0 even if t != p because t->mm != NULL */
}
t->alloc_lock is still held when leaving find_lock_task_mm(), which means
that t->mm != NULL. But nothing prevents t from setting t->mm = NULL at
exit_mm() from do_exit() and calling exit_creds() from __put_task_struct(t)
after task_unlock(t) is called. Seems difficult to trigger race window. Maybe
something has preempted because oom_badness() becomes outside of RCU grace
period upon leaving find_lock_task_mm() when called from proc_oom_score().
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-08 14:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-07 12:57 Gaurav Kohli
2018-03-07 20:56 ` David Rientjes
2018-03-08 4:51 ` Kohli, Gaurav
2018-03-08 14:05 ` Tetsuo Handa [this message]
2018-03-09 7:11 ` Kohli, Gaurav
2018-03-09 10:48 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-03-09 12:04 ` Kohli, Gaurav
2018-03-09 12:18 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-03-13 13:37 ` Michal Hocko
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=d73682f9-f214-64c4-ce09-fd1ff3ffe252@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--to=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=gkohli@codeaurora.org \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
/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