| Message ID | 20240802235822.1830976-1-shakeel.butt@linux.dev (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | memcg: protect concurrent access to mem_cgroup_idr | expand |
> On Aug 3, 2024, at 07:58, Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev> wrote: > > The commit 73f576c04b94 ("mm: memcontrol: fix cgroup creation failure > after many small jobs") decoupled the memcg IDs from the CSS ID space to > fix the cgroup creation failures. It introduced IDR to maintain the > memcg ID space. The IDR depends on external synchronization mechanisms > for modifications. For the mem_cgroup_idr, the idr_alloc() and > idr_replace() happen within css callback and thus are protected through > cgroup_mutex from concurrent modifications. However idr_remove() for > mem_cgroup_idr was not protected against concurrency and can be run > concurrently for different memcgs when they hit their refcnt to zero. > Fix that. > > We have been seeing list_lru based kernel crashes at a low frequency in > our fleet for a long time. These crashes were in different part of > list_lru code including list_lru_add(), list_lru_del() and reparenting > code. Upon further inspection, it looked like for a given object (dentry > and inode), the super_block's list_lru didn't have list_lru_one for the > memcg of that object. The initial suspicions were either the object is > not allocated through kmem_cache_alloc_lru() or somehow > memcg_list_lru_alloc() failed to allocate list_lru_one() for a memcg but > returned success. No evidence were found for these cases. > > Looking more deeper, we started seeing situations where valid memcg's id > is not present in mem_cgroup_idr and in some cases multiple valid memcgs > have same id and mem_cgroup_idr is pointing to one of them. So, the most > reasonable explanation is that these situations can happen due to race > between multiple idr_remove() calls or race between > idr_alloc()/idr_replace() and idr_remove(). These races are causing > multiple memcgs to acquire the same ID and then offlining of one of them > would cleanup list_lrus on the system for all of them. Later access from > other memcgs to the list_lru cause crashes due to missing list_lru_one. > > Fixes: 73f576c04b94 ("mm: memcontrol: fix cgroup creation failure after many small jobs") > Signed-off-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev> Acked-by: Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev> Thanks.
On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 04:58:22PM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote: > The commit 73f576c04b94 ("mm: memcontrol: fix cgroup creation failure > after many small jobs") decoupled the memcg IDs from the CSS ID space to > fix the cgroup creation failures. It introduced IDR to maintain the > memcg ID space. The IDR depends on external synchronization mechanisms > for modifications. For the mem_cgroup_idr, the idr_alloc() and > idr_replace() happen within css callback and thus are protected through > cgroup_mutex from concurrent modifications. However idr_remove() for > mem_cgroup_idr was not protected against concurrency and can be run > concurrently for different memcgs when they hit their refcnt to zero. > Fix that. > > We have been seeing list_lru based kernel crashes at a low frequency in > our fleet for a long time. These crashes were in different part of > list_lru code including list_lru_add(), list_lru_del() and reparenting > code. Upon further inspection, it looked like for a given object (dentry > and inode), the super_block's list_lru didn't have list_lru_one for the > memcg of that object. The initial suspicions were either the object is > not allocated through kmem_cache_alloc_lru() or somehow > memcg_list_lru_alloc() failed to allocate list_lru_one() for a memcg but > returned success. No evidence were found for these cases. > > Looking more deeper, we started seeing situations where valid memcg's id > is not present in mem_cgroup_idr and in some cases multiple valid memcgs > have same id and mem_cgroup_idr is pointing to one of them. So, the most > reasonable explanation is that these situations can happen due to race > between multiple idr_remove() calls or race between > idr_alloc()/idr_replace() and idr_remove(). These races are causing > multiple memcgs to acquire the same ID and then offlining of one of them > would cleanup list_lrus on the system for all of them. Later access from > other memcgs to the list_lru cause crashes due to missing list_lru_one. > > Fixes: 73f576c04b94 ("mm: memcontrol: fix cgroup creation failure after many small jobs") > Signed-off-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev> Great catch. This has been busted for ages, but the race is so unlikely that it stayed low profile. Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> It probably should be Cc: stable as well.
On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 04:58:22PM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote: > The commit 73f576c04b94 ("mm: memcontrol: fix cgroup creation failure > after many small jobs") decoupled the memcg IDs from the CSS ID space to > fix the cgroup creation failures. It introduced IDR to maintain the > memcg ID space. The IDR depends on external synchronization mechanisms > for modifications. For the mem_cgroup_idr, the idr_alloc() and > idr_replace() happen within css callback and thus are protected through > cgroup_mutex from concurrent modifications. However idr_remove() for > mem_cgroup_idr was not protected against concurrency and can be run > concurrently for different memcgs when they hit their refcnt to zero. > Fix that. > > We have been seeing list_lru based kernel crashes at a low frequency in > our fleet for a long time. These crashes were in different part of > list_lru code including list_lru_add(), list_lru_del() and reparenting > code. Upon further inspection, it looked like for a given object (dentry > and inode), the super_block's list_lru didn't have list_lru_one for the > memcg of that object. The initial suspicions were either the object is > not allocated through kmem_cache_alloc_lru() or somehow > memcg_list_lru_alloc() failed to allocate list_lru_one() for a memcg but > returned success. No evidence were found for these cases. > > Looking more deeper, we started seeing situations where valid memcg's id > is not present in mem_cgroup_idr and in some cases multiple valid memcgs > have same id and mem_cgroup_idr is pointing to one of them. So, the most > reasonable explanation is that these situations can happen due to race > between multiple idr_remove() calls or race between > idr_alloc()/idr_replace() and idr_remove(). These races are causing > multiple memcgs to acquire the same ID and then offlining of one of them > would cleanup list_lrus on the system for all of them. Later access from > other memcgs to the list_lru cause crashes due to missing list_lru_one. Great catch! Reviewed-by: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev> Thanks
On Fri 02-08-24 16:58:22, Shakeel Butt wrote: > The commit 73f576c04b94 ("mm: memcontrol: fix cgroup creation failure > after many small jobs") decoupled the memcg IDs from the CSS ID space to > fix the cgroup creation failures. It introduced IDR to maintain the > memcg ID space. The IDR depends on external synchronization mechanisms > for modifications. For the mem_cgroup_idr, the idr_alloc() and > idr_replace() happen within css callback and thus are protected through > cgroup_mutex from concurrent modifications. However idr_remove() for > mem_cgroup_idr was not protected against concurrency and can be run > concurrently for different memcgs when they hit their refcnt to zero. > Fix that. > > We have been seeing list_lru based kernel crashes at a low frequency in > our fleet for a long time. These crashes were in different part of > list_lru code including list_lru_add(), list_lru_del() and reparenting > code. Upon further inspection, it looked like for a given object (dentry > and inode), the super_block's list_lru didn't have list_lru_one for the > memcg of that object. The initial suspicions were either the object is > not allocated through kmem_cache_alloc_lru() or somehow > memcg_list_lru_alloc() failed to allocate list_lru_one() for a memcg but > returned success. No evidence were found for these cases. > > Looking more deeper, we started seeing situations where valid memcg's id > is not present in mem_cgroup_idr and in some cases multiple valid memcgs > have same id and mem_cgroup_idr is pointing to one of them. So, the most > reasonable explanation is that these situations can happen due to race > between multiple idr_remove() calls or race between > idr_alloc()/idr_replace() and idr_remove(). These races are causing > multiple memcgs to acquire the same ID and then offlining of one of them > would cleanup list_lrus on the system for all of them. Later access from > other memcgs to the list_lru cause crashes due to missing list_lru_one. > > Fixes: 73f576c04b94 ("mm: memcontrol: fix cgroup creation failure after many small jobs") > Signed-off-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev> Sorry for being late here. Thanks for catching this up. Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> Cc: stable is definitely due here as those races are really nasty to debug. Thanks! > --- > mm/memcontrol.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c > index b889a7fbf382..8971d3473a7b 100644 > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c > @@ -3364,11 +3364,28 @@ static void memcg_wb_domain_size_changed(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) > > #define MEM_CGROUP_ID_MAX ((1UL << MEM_CGROUP_ID_SHIFT) - 1) > static DEFINE_IDR(mem_cgroup_idr); > +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(memcg_idr_lock); > + > +static int mem_cgroup_alloc_id(void) > +{ > + int ret; > + > + idr_preload(GFP_KERNEL); > + spin_lock(&memcg_idr_lock); > + ret = idr_alloc(&mem_cgroup_idr, NULL, 1, MEM_CGROUP_ID_MAX + 1, > + GFP_NOWAIT); > + spin_unlock(&memcg_idr_lock); > + idr_preload_end(); > + return ret; > +} > > static void mem_cgroup_id_remove(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) > { > if (memcg->id.id > 0) { > + spin_lock(&memcg_idr_lock); > idr_remove(&mem_cgroup_idr, memcg->id.id); > + spin_unlock(&memcg_idr_lock); > + > memcg->id.id = 0; > } > } > @@ -3502,8 +3519,7 @@ static struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_alloc(struct mem_cgroup *parent) > if (!memcg) > return ERR_PTR(error); > > - memcg->id.id = idr_alloc(&mem_cgroup_idr, NULL, > - 1, MEM_CGROUP_ID_MAX + 1, GFP_KERNEL); > + memcg->id.id = mem_cgroup_alloc_id(); > if (memcg->id.id < 0) { > error = memcg->id.id; > goto fail; > @@ -3648,7 +3664,9 @@ static int mem_cgroup_css_online(struct cgroup_subsys_state *css) > * publish it here at the end of onlining. This matches the > * regular ID destruction during offlining. > */ > + spin_lock(&memcg_idr_lock); > idr_replace(&mem_cgroup_idr, memcg, memcg->id.id); > + spin_unlock(&memcg_idr_lock); > > return 0; > offline_kmem: > -- > 2.43.5
diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c index b889a7fbf382..8971d3473a7b 100644 --- a/mm/memcontrol.c +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c @@ -3364,11 +3364,28 @@ static void memcg_wb_domain_size_changed(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) #define MEM_CGROUP_ID_MAX ((1UL << MEM_CGROUP_ID_SHIFT) - 1) static DEFINE_IDR(mem_cgroup_idr); +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(memcg_idr_lock); + +static int mem_cgroup_alloc_id(void) +{ + int ret; + + idr_preload(GFP_KERNEL); + spin_lock(&memcg_idr_lock); + ret = idr_alloc(&mem_cgroup_idr, NULL, 1, MEM_CGROUP_ID_MAX + 1, + GFP_NOWAIT); + spin_unlock(&memcg_idr_lock); + idr_preload_end(); + return ret; +} static void mem_cgroup_id_remove(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) { if (memcg->id.id > 0) { + spin_lock(&memcg_idr_lock); idr_remove(&mem_cgroup_idr, memcg->id.id); + spin_unlock(&memcg_idr_lock); + memcg->id.id = 0; } } @@ -3502,8 +3519,7 @@ static struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_alloc(struct mem_cgroup *parent) if (!memcg) return ERR_PTR(error); - memcg->id.id = idr_alloc(&mem_cgroup_idr, NULL, - 1, MEM_CGROUP_ID_MAX + 1, GFP_KERNEL); + memcg->id.id = mem_cgroup_alloc_id(); if (memcg->id.id < 0) { error = memcg->id.id; goto fail; @@ -3648,7 +3664,9 @@ static int mem_cgroup_css_online(struct cgroup_subsys_state *css) * publish it here at the end of onlining. This matches the * regular ID destruction during offlining. */ + spin_lock(&memcg_idr_lock); idr_replace(&mem_cgroup_idr, memcg, memcg->id.id); + spin_unlock(&memcg_idr_lock); return 0; offline_kmem:
The commit 73f576c04b94 ("mm: memcontrol: fix cgroup creation failure after many small jobs") decoupled the memcg IDs from the CSS ID space to fix the cgroup creation failures. It introduced IDR to maintain the memcg ID space. The IDR depends on external synchronization mechanisms for modifications. For the mem_cgroup_idr, the idr_alloc() and idr_replace() happen within css callback and thus are protected through cgroup_mutex from concurrent modifications. However idr_remove() for mem_cgroup_idr was not protected against concurrency and can be run concurrently for different memcgs when they hit their refcnt to zero. Fix that. We have been seeing list_lru based kernel crashes at a low frequency in our fleet for a long time. These crashes were in different part of list_lru code including list_lru_add(), list_lru_del() and reparenting code. Upon further inspection, it looked like for a given object (dentry and inode), the super_block's list_lru didn't have list_lru_one for the memcg of that object. The initial suspicions were either the object is not allocated through kmem_cache_alloc_lru() or somehow memcg_list_lru_alloc() failed to allocate list_lru_one() for a memcg but returned success. No evidence were found for these cases. Looking more deeper, we started seeing situations where valid memcg's id is not present in mem_cgroup_idr and in some cases multiple valid memcgs have same id and mem_cgroup_idr is pointing to one of them. So, the most reasonable explanation is that these situations can happen due to race between multiple idr_remove() calls or race between idr_alloc()/idr_replace() and idr_remove(). These races are causing multiple memcgs to acquire the same ID and then offlining of one of them would cleanup list_lrus on the system for all of them. Later access from other memcgs to the list_lru cause crashes due to missing list_lru_one. Fixes: 73f576c04b94 ("mm: memcontrol: fix cgroup creation failure after many small jobs") Signed-off-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev> --- mm/memcontrol.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)