| Message ID | 20200129105224.4016-1-cai@lca.pw (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | mm/page_counter: fix various data races | expand |
On 29.01.20 11:52, Qian Cai wrote: > The commit 3e32cb2e0a12 ("mm: memcontrol: lockless page counters") could > had memcg->memsw->watermark been accessed concurrently as reported by > KCSAN, > > Reported by Kernel Concurrency Sanitizer on: > BUG: KCSAN: data-race in page_counter_try_charge / page_counter_try_charge > > read to 0xffff8fb18c4cd190 of 8 bytes by task 1081 on cpu 59: > page_counter_try_charge+0x4d/0x150 mm/page_counter.c:138 > try_charge+0x131/0xd50 mm/memcontrol.c:2405 > __memcg_kmem_charge_memcg+0x58/0x140 > __memcg_kmem_charge+0xcc/0x280 > __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x1e1/0x450 > alloc_pages_current+0xa6/0x120 > pte_alloc_one+0x17/0xd0 > __pte_alloc+0x3a/0x1f0 > copy_p4d_range+0xc36/0x1990 > copy_page_range+0x21d/0x360 > dup_mmap+0x5f5/0x7a0 > dup_mm+0xa2/0x240 > copy_process+0x1b3f/0x3460 > _do_fork+0xaa/0xa20 > __x64_sys_clone+0x13b/0x170 > do_syscall_64+0x91/0xb47 > entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe > > write to 0xffff8fb18c4cd190 of 8 bytes by task 1153 on cpu 120: > page_counter_try_charge+0x5b/0x150 mm/page_counter.c:139 > try_charge+0x131/0xd50 mm/memcontrol.c:2405 > mem_cgroup_try_charge+0x159/0x460 > mem_cgroup_try_charge_delay+0x3d/0xa0 > wp_page_copy+0x14d/0x930 > do_wp_page+0x107/0x7b0 > __handle_mm_fault+0xce6/0xd40 > handle_mm_fault+0xfc/0x2f0 > do_page_fault+0x263/0x6f9 > page_fault+0x34/0x40 > > Since watermark could be compared or set to garbage due to load or > store tearing which would change the code logic, fix it by adding a pair > of READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() in those places. > > Fixes: 3e32cb2e0a12 ("mm: memcontrol: lockless page counters") > Signed-off-by: Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw> > --- > mm/page_counter.c | 8 ++++---- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/page_counter.c b/mm/page_counter.c > index de31470655f6..a17841150906 100644 > --- a/mm/page_counter.c > +++ b/mm/page_counter.c > @@ -82,8 +82,8 @@ void page_counter_charge(struct page_counter *counter, unsigned long nr_pages) > * This is indeed racy, but we can live with some > * inaccuracy in the watermark. > */ > - if (new > c->watermark) > - c->watermark = new; > + if (new > READ_ONCE(c->watermark)) > + WRITE_ONCE(c->watermark, new); > } > } > > @@ -135,8 +135,8 @@ bool page_counter_try_charge(struct page_counter *counter, > * Just like with failcnt, we can live with some > * inaccuracy in the watermark. > */ > - if (new > c->watermark) > - c->watermark = new; > + if (new > READ_ONCE(c->watermark)) > + WRITE_ONCE(c->watermark, new); So, if this is racy, isn't it a problem that that "new" could suddenly be < c->watermark (concurrent writer). So you would use the "higher" watermark.
On 29.01.20 11:57, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 29.01.20 11:52, Qian Cai wrote: >> The commit 3e32cb2e0a12 ("mm: memcontrol: lockless page counters") could >> had memcg->memsw->watermark been accessed concurrently as reported by >> KCSAN, >> >> Reported by Kernel Concurrency Sanitizer on: >> BUG: KCSAN: data-race in page_counter_try_charge / page_counter_try_charge >> >> read to 0xffff8fb18c4cd190 of 8 bytes by task 1081 on cpu 59: >> page_counter_try_charge+0x4d/0x150 mm/page_counter.c:138 >> try_charge+0x131/0xd50 mm/memcontrol.c:2405 >> __memcg_kmem_charge_memcg+0x58/0x140 >> __memcg_kmem_charge+0xcc/0x280 >> __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x1e1/0x450 >> alloc_pages_current+0xa6/0x120 >> pte_alloc_one+0x17/0xd0 >> __pte_alloc+0x3a/0x1f0 >> copy_p4d_range+0xc36/0x1990 >> copy_page_range+0x21d/0x360 >> dup_mmap+0x5f5/0x7a0 >> dup_mm+0xa2/0x240 >> copy_process+0x1b3f/0x3460 >> _do_fork+0xaa/0xa20 >> __x64_sys_clone+0x13b/0x170 >> do_syscall_64+0x91/0xb47 >> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe >> >> write to 0xffff8fb18c4cd190 of 8 bytes by task 1153 on cpu 120: >> page_counter_try_charge+0x5b/0x150 mm/page_counter.c:139 >> try_charge+0x131/0xd50 mm/memcontrol.c:2405 >> mem_cgroup_try_charge+0x159/0x460 >> mem_cgroup_try_charge_delay+0x3d/0xa0 >> wp_page_copy+0x14d/0x930 >> do_wp_page+0x107/0x7b0 >> __handle_mm_fault+0xce6/0xd40 >> handle_mm_fault+0xfc/0x2f0 >> do_page_fault+0x263/0x6f9 >> page_fault+0x34/0x40 >> >> Since watermark could be compared or set to garbage due to load or >> store tearing which would change the code logic, fix it by adding a pair >> of READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() in those places. >> >> Fixes: 3e32cb2e0a12 ("mm: memcontrol: lockless page counters") >> Signed-off-by: Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw> >> --- >> mm/page_counter.c | 8 ++++---- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/mm/page_counter.c b/mm/page_counter.c >> index de31470655f6..a17841150906 100644 >> --- a/mm/page_counter.c >> +++ b/mm/page_counter.c >> @@ -82,8 +82,8 @@ void page_counter_charge(struct page_counter *counter, unsigned long nr_pages) >> * This is indeed racy, but we can live with some >> * inaccuracy in the watermark. >> */ >> - if (new > c->watermark) >> - c->watermark = new; >> + if (new > READ_ONCE(c->watermark)) >> + WRITE_ONCE(c->watermark, new); >> } >> } >> >> @@ -135,8 +135,8 @@ bool page_counter_try_charge(struct page_counter *counter, >> * Just like with failcnt, we can live with some >> * inaccuracy in the watermark. >> */ >> - if (new > c->watermark) >> - c->watermark = new; >> + if (new > READ_ONCE(c->watermark)) >> + WRITE_ONCE(c->watermark, new); > > So, if this is racy, isn't it a problem that that "new" could suddenly > be < c->watermark (concurrent writer). So you would use the "higher" > watermark. s/use/lose/ :)
On Wed 29-01-20 05:52:24, Qian Cai wrote: > The commit 3e32cb2e0a12 ("mm: memcontrol: lockless page counters") could > had memcg->memsw->watermark been accessed concurrently as reported by > KCSAN, > > Reported by Kernel Concurrency Sanitizer on: > BUG: KCSAN: data-race in page_counter_try_charge / page_counter_try_charge > > read to 0xffff8fb18c4cd190 of 8 bytes by task 1081 on cpu 59: > page_counter_try_charge+0x4d/0x150 mm/page_counter.c:138 > try_charge+0x131/0xd50 mm/memcontrol.c:2405 > __memcg_kmem_charge_memcg+0x58/0x140 > __memcg_kmem_charge+0xcc/0x280 > __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x1e1/0x450 > alloc_pages_current+0xa6/0x120 > pte_alloc_one+0x17/0xd0 > __pte_alloc+0x3a/0x1f0 > copy_p4d_range+0xc36/0x1990 > copy_page_range+0x21d/0x360 > dup_mmap+0x5f5/0x7a0 > dup_mm+0xa2/0x240 > copy_process+0x1b3f/0x3460 > _do_fork+0xaa/0xa20 > __x64_sys_clone+0x13b/0x170 > do_syscall_64+0x91/0xb47 > entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe > > write to 0xffff8fb18c4cd190 of 8 bytes by task 1153 on cpu 120: > page_counter_try_charge+0x5b/0x150 mm/page_counter.c:139 > try_charge+0x131/0xd50 mm/memcontrol.c:2405 > mem_cgroup_try_charge+0x159/0x460 > mem_cgroup_try_charge_delay+0x3d/0xa0 > wp_page_copy+0x14d/0x930 > do_wp_page+0x107/0x7b0 > __handle_mm_fault+0xce6/0xd40 > handle_mm_fault+0xfc/0x2f0 > do_page_fault+0x263/0x6f9 > page_fault+0x34/0x40 > > Since watermark could be compared or set to garbage due to load or > store tearing which would change the code logic, fix it by adding a pair > of READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() in those places. There is no actual problem and the report is false positive, right? While compilers are free to do all sorts of stuff do we have any actual proof that this particular path would ever be problematic. I do not oppose to the patch. {READ,WRITE}_ONCE actually makes some sense to me, but the changelog should be more clear on how serious this is. > Fixes: 3e32cb2e0a12 ("mm: memcontrol: lockless page counters") > Signed-off-by: Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> > --- > mm/page_counter.c | 8 ++++---- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/page_counter.c b/mm/page_counter.c > index de31470655f6..a17841150906 100644 > --- a/mm/page_counter.c > +++ b/mm/page_counter.c > @@ -82,8 +82,8 @@ void page_counter_charge(struct page_counter *counter, unsigned long nr_pages) > * This is indeed racy, but we can live with some > * inaccuracy in the watermark. > */ > - if (new > c->watermark) > - c->watermark = new; > + if (new > READ_ONCE(c->watermark)) > + WRITE_ONCE(c->watermark, new); > } > } > > @@ -135,8 +135,8 @@ bool page_counter_try_charge(struct page_counter *counter, > * Just like with failcnt, we can live with some > * inaccuracy in the watermark. > */ > - if (new > c->watermark) > - c->watermark = new; > + if (new > READ_ONCE(c->watermark)) > + WRITE_ONCE(c->watermark, new); > } > return true; > > -- > 2.21.0 (Apple Git-122.2)
On 2020/01/29 21:03, Michal Hocko wrote: >> Fixes: 3e32cb2e0a12 ("mm: memcontrol: lockless page counters") >> Signed-off-by: Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw> > > Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> Please include Reported-by: syzbot+f36cfe60b1006a94f9dc@syzkaller.appspotmail.com for https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=744097b8b91cecd8b035a6f746bb12e4efc7669f . By the way, can READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() really solve this warning? The link above says read/write on the same location ( mm/page_counter.c:129 ). I don't know how READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() can solve the race. > >> --- >> mm/page_counter.c | 8 ++++---- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/mm/page_counter.c b/mm/page_counter.c >> index de31470655f6..a17841150906 100644 >> --- a/mm/page_counter.c >> +++ b/mm/page_counter.c >> @@ -82,8 +82,8 @@ void page_counter_charge(struct page_counter *counter, unsigned long nr_pages) >> * This is indeed racy, but we can live with some >> * inaccuracy in the watermark. >> */ >> - if (new > c->watermark) >> - c->watermark = new; >> + if (new > READ_ONCE(c->watermark)) >> + WRITE_ONCE(c->watermark, new); >> } >> } >> >> @@ -135,8 +135,8 @@ bool page_counter_try_charge(struct page_counter *counter, >> * Just like with failcnt, we can live with some >> * inaccuracy in the watermark. >> */ >> - if (new > c->watermark) >> - c->watermark = new; >> + if (new > READ_ONCE(c->watermark)) >> + WRITE_ONCE(c->watermark, new); >> } >> return true; >> >> -- >> 2.21.0 (Apple Git-122.2) >
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 13:13, Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> wrote: > > On 2020/01/29 21:03, Michal Hocko wrote: > >> Fixes: 3e32cb2e0a12 ("mm: memcontrol: lockless page counters") > >> Signed-off-by: Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw> > > > > Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> > > Please include > > Reported-by: syzbot+f36cfe60b1006a94f9dc@syzkaller.appspotmail.com > > for https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=744097b8b91cecd8b035a6f746bb12e4efc7669f . > > By the way, can READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() really solve this warning? > The link above says read/write on the same location ( mm/page_counter.c:129 ). > I don't know how READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() can solve the race. It avoids the *data* race, with *_ONCE telling the compiler to not optimize the accesses in concurrency-unfriendly ways. Since *_ONCE is used, it conveys clear intent that the code here is meant to be concurrent, and KCSAN stops complaining (and assumes that the *logic* is correct). The race itself is still there, but as per comment in the file, apparently fine and not a logic bug. > > > >> --- > >> mm/page_counter.c | 8 ++++---- > >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/mm/page_counter.c b/mm/page_counter.c > >> index de31470655f6..a17841150906 100644 > >> --- a/mm/page_counter.c > >> +++ b/mm/page_counter.c > >> @@ -82,8 +82,8 @@ void page_counter_charge(struct page_counter *counter, unsigned long nr_pages) > >> * This is indeed racy, but we can live with some > >> * inaccuracy in the watermark. > >> */ > >> - if (new > c->watermark) > >> - c->watermark = new; > >> + if (new > READ_ONCE(c->watermark)) > >> + WRITE_ONCE(c->watermark, new); > >> } > >> } > >> > >> @@ -135,8 +135,8 @@ bool page_counter_try_charge(struct page_counter *counter, > >> * Just like with failcnt, we can live with some > >> * inaccuracy in the watermark. > >> */ > >> - if (new > c->watermark) > >> - c->watermark = new; > >> + if (new > READ_ONCE(c->watermark)) > >> + WRITE_ONCE(c->watermark, new); > >> } > >> return true; > >> > >> -- > >> 2.21.0 (Apple Git-122.2) > > >
> On Jan 29, 2020, at 7:13 AM, Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> wrote: > > By the way, can READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() really solve this warning? > The link above says read/write on the same location ( mm/page_counter.c:129 ). > I don't know how READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() can solve the race. That looks like a different one where it complains about c->failcnt++. I’ll send a separate patch for that.
On 2020/01/29 21:25, Qian Cai wrote: > > >> On Jan 29, 2020, at 7:13 AM, Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> wrote: >> >> By the way, can READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() really solve this warning? >> The link above says read/write on the same location ( mm/page_counter.c:129 ). >> I don't know how READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() can solve the race. > > That looks like a different one where it complains about c->failcnt++. I’ll send a separate patch for that. > Ah, then this patch is meant for mm/page_counter.c:138 versus page_counter.c:139 race which was closed as invalid at https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=871391ec080746185a2dd437c54d75fcd1ef0ef8 .
On 2020/01/29 21:21, Marco Elver wrote: >> By the way, can READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() really solve this warning? >> The link above says read/write on the same location ( mm/page_counter.c:129 ). >> I don't know how READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() can solve the race. > > It avoids the *data* race, with *_ONCE telling the compiler to not > optimize the accesses in concurrency-unfriendly ways. Since *_ONCE is > used, it conveys clear intent that the code here is meant to be > concurrent, and KCSAN stops complaining (and assumes that the *logic* > is correct). I see. Unlike c->failcnt++ which involves read-modify-write, *_ONCE() can be used for simple read (like c->watermark) or simple write (like c->watermark = new) case.
> On Jan 29, 2020, at 7:03 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> Andrew, could you pick this as well if have not done so?
diff --git a/mm/page_counter.c b/mm/page_counter.c index de31470655f6..a17841150906 100644 --- a/mm/page_counter.c +++ b/mm/page_counter.c @@ -82,8 +82,8 @@ void page_counter_charge(struct page_counter *counter, unsigned long nr_pages) * This is indeed racy, but we can live with some * inaccuracy in the watermark. */ - if (new > c->watermark) - c->watermark = new; + if (new > READ_ONCE(c->watermark)) + WRITE_ONCE(c->watermark, new); } } @@ -135,8 +135,8 @@ bool page_counter_try_charge(struct page_counter *counter, * Just like with failcnt, we can live with some * inaccuracy in the watermark. */ - if (new > c->watermark) - c->watermark = new; + if (new > READ_ONCE(c->watermark)) + WRITE_ONCE(c->watermark, new); } return true;
The commit 3e32cb2e0a12 ("mm: memcontrol: lockless page counters") could had memcg->memsw->watermark been accessed concurrently as reported by KCSAN, Reported by Kernel Concurrency Sanitizer on: BUG: KCSAN: data-race in page_counter_try_charge / page_counter_try_charge read to 0xffff8fb18c4cd190 of 8 bytes by task 1081 on cpu 59: page_counter_try_charge+0x4d/0x150 mm/page_counter.c:138 try_charge+0x131/0xd50 mm/memcontrol.c:2405 __memcg_kmem_charge_memcg+0x58/0x140 __memcg_kmem_charge+0xcc/0x280 __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x1e1/0x450 alloc_pages_current+0xa6/0x120 pte_alloc_one+0x17/0xd0 __pte_alloc+0x3a/0x1f0 copy_p4d_range+0xc36/0x1990 copy_page_range+0x21d/0x360 dup_mmap+0x5f5/0x7a0 dup_mm+0xa2/0x240 copy_process+0x1b3f/0x3460 _do_fork+0xaa/0xa20 __x64_sys_clone+0x13b/0x170 do_syscall_64+0x91/0xb47 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe write to 0xffff8fb18c4cd190 of 8 bytes by task 1153 on cpu 120: page_counter_try_charge+0x5b/0x150 mm/page_counter.c:139 try_charge+0x131/0xd50 mm/memcontrol.c:2405 mem_cgroup_try_charge+0x159/0x460 mem_cgroup_try_charge_delay+0x3d/0xa0 wp_page_copy+0x14d/0x930 do_wp_page+0x107/0x7b0 __handle_mm_fault+0xce6/0xd40 handle_mm_fault+0xfc/0x2f0 do_page_fault+0x263/0x6f9 page_fault+0x34/0x40 Since watermark could be compared or set to garbage due to load or store tearing which would change the code logic, fix it by adding a pair of READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() in those places. Fixes: 3e32cb2e0a12 ("mm: memcontrol: lockless page counters") Signed-off-by: Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw> --- mm/page_counter.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)