Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH][2/4] Add RSS accounting and control

[Balbir Singh <balbir@in.ibm.com>]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:39:33 +0530 Balbir Singh <balbir@in.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>> Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:07:44 +0530 Balbir Singh <balbir@in.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> +void memctlr_mm_free(struct mm_struct *mm)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> +	kfree(mm->counter);
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +static inline void memctlr_mm_assign_container_direct(struct mm_struct *mm,
>>>>>> +							struct container *cont)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> +	write_lock(&mm->container_lock);
>>>>>> +	mm->container = cont;
>>>>>> +	write_unlock(&mm->container_lock);
>>>>>> +}
>>>>> More weird locking here.
>>>>>
>>>> The container field of the mm_struct is protected by a read write spin lock.
>>> That doesn't mean anything to me.
>>>
>>> What would go wrong if the above locking was simply removed?  And how does
>>> the locking prevent that fault?
>>>
>> Some pages could charged to the wrong container. Apart from that I do not
>> see anything going bad (I'll double check that).
> 
> Argh.  Please, think about this.
> 

Sure, I will. I guess I am short circuiting my thinking process :-)


> That locking *doesn't do anything*.  Except for that one situation I
> described: some other holder of the lock reads mm->container twice inside
> the lock and requires that the value be the same both times (and that sort
> of code should be converted to take a local copy, so this locking here can
> be removed).
> 

Yes, that makes sense.

>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	read_lock(&mm->container_lock);
>>>>>> +	cont = mm->container;
>>>>>> +	read_unlock(&mm->container_lock);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	if (!cont)
>>>>>> +		goto done;
>>>>> And here.  I mean, if there was a reason for taking the lock around that
>>>>> read, then testing `cont' outside the lock just invalidated that reason.
>>>>>
>>>> We took a consistent snapshot of cont. It cannot change outside the lock,
>>>> we check the value outside. I am sure I missed something.
>>> If it cannot change outside the lock then we don't need to take the lock!
>>>
>> We took a snapshot that we thought was consistent.
> 
> Consistent with what?  That's a single-word read inside that lock.
> 

Yes, that makes sense.

>> We check for the value
>> outside. I guess there is no harm, the worst thing that could happen
>> is wrong accounting during mm->container changes (when a task changes
>> container).
> 
> If container->lock is held when a task is removed from the
> container then yes, `cont' here can refer to a container to which the task
> no longer belongs.
> 
> More worrisome is the potential for use-after-free.  What prevents the
> pointer at mm->container from referring to freed memory after we're dropped
> the lock?
> 

The container cannot be freed unless all tasks holding references to it are
gone, that would ensure that all mm->containers are pointing elsewhere and
never to a stale value.

I hope my short-circuited brain got this right :-)



-- 
	Warm Regards,
	Balbir Singh