diff options
author | Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@parallels.com> | 2014-01-24 00:53:02 +0100 |
---|---|---|
committer | Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> | 2014-01-24 01:36:51 +0100 |
commit | 2edefe1155b3ad3dc92065f6e1018d363525296e (patch) | |
tree | 893832c3693fab8cb849fdbfc1a264e376154860 /mm/memcontrol.c | |
parent | memcg: fix possible NULL deref while traversing memcg_slab_caches list (diff) | |
download | linux-2edefe1155b3ad3dc92065f6e1018d363525296e.tar.xz linux-2edefe1155b3ad3dc92065f6e1018d363525296e.zip |
memcg, slab: fix races in per-memcg cache creation/destruction
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>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'mm/memcontrol.c')
-rw-r--r-- | mm/memcontrol.c | 23 |
1 files changed, 14 insertions, 9 deletions
diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c index 014a4f1acf1c..d2da65c4cd84 100644 --- a/mm/memcontrol.c +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c @@ -3264,6 +3264,12 @@ 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); @@ -3283,6 +3289,7 @@ 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); @@ -3299,6 +3306,12 @@ 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); @@ -3312,6 +3325,7 @@ 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); @@ -3464,22 +3478,13 @@ 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; } |