lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jun]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm/slub: add missing TID updates on slab deactivation
From
On 6/14/22 17:54, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 10:23 AM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> wrote:
>
>> > stat(s, DEACTIVATE_BYPASS);
>> > goto new_slab;
>> > @@ -2968,6 +2969,7 @@ static void *___slab_alloc(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t gfpflags, int node,
>> > freelist = c->freelist;
>> > c->slab = NULL;
>> > c->freelist = NULL;
>>
>> Previously these were part of deactivate_slab(), which does that at the very
>> end, but also without bumping tid.
>> I just wonder if it's necessary too, because IIUC the scenario you described
>> relies on the missing bump above. This alone doesn't cause the c->slab vs
>> c->freelist mismatch?
>
> It's a different scenario, but at least in the current version, the
> ALLOC_NODE_MISMATCH case jumps straight to the deactivate_slab label,
> which takes the local_lock, grabs the old c->freelist, NULLs out
> ->slab and ->freelist, then drops the local_lock again. If the
> c->freelist was non-NULL, then this will prevent concurrent cmpxchg
> success; but there is no reason why c->freelist has to be non-NULL
> here. So if c->freelist is already NULL, we basically just take the
> local_lock, set c->slab to NULL, and drop the local_lock. And IIUC the

Ah, right. Thanks for the explanation.

> local_lock is the only protection we have here against concurrency,
> since the slub_get_cpu_ptr() in __slab_alloc() only disables
> migration?

On PREEMPT_RT it disables migration, but on !PREEMPT_RT it's a plain
get_cpu_ptr() that does preempt_disable(). But that's an implementation
detail, disabling migration would be sufficient on !PREEMPT_RT too, but
right now it's cheaper to disable migration.

> So again a concurrent fastpath free should be able to set
> c->freelist to non-NULL after c->slab has been set to NULL.
>
> So I think this TID bump is also necessary for correctness in the
> current version.

OK.

> And looking back at older kernels, back to at least 4.9, the
> ALLOC_NODE_MISMATCH case looks similarly broken - except that again,
> as you pointed out, we don't have the fine-grained locking, so it only
> becomes racy if we hit new_slab_objects() -> new_slab() ->
> allocate_slab() and then either we do local_irq_enable() or the
> allocation fails.
>
>> Thanks. Applying to slab/for-5.19-rc3/fixes branch.
>
> Thanks!

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-06-15 09:20    [W:0.076 / U:0.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site