* [PATCH 1/2] cgroup: Delay the clearing of cgrp->kn->priv
@ 2014-09-02 10:56 Li Zefan
[not found] ` <5405A27A.3090605-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Li Zefan @ 2014-09-02 10:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tejun Heo; +Cc: Toralf Förster, LKML, cgroups
Run these two scripts concurrently:
for ((; ;))
{
mkdir /cgroup/sub
rmdir /cgroup/sub
}
for ((; ;))
{
echo $$ > /cgroup/sub/cgroup.procs
ech $$ > /cgce 6f2e0c38c2108a74 ]---
}
A kernel bug will be triggered:
BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 00000038
IP: [<c10bbd69>] cgroup_put+0x9/0x80
...
Call Trace:
[<c10bbe19>] cgroup_kn_unlock+0x39/0x50
[<c10bbe91>] cgroup_kn_lock_live+0x61/0x70
[<c10be3c1>] __cgroup_procs_write.isra.26+0x51/0x230
[<c10be5b2>] cgroup_tasks_write+0x12/0x20
[<c10bb7b0>] cgroup_file_write+0x40/0x130
[<c11aee71>] kernfs_fop_write+0xd1/0x160
[<c1148e58>] vfs_write+0x98/0x1e0
[<c114934d>] SyS_write+0x4d/0xa0
[<c16f656b>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x12
We clear cgrp->kn->priv in the end of cgroup_rmdir(), but another
concurrent thread can access kn->priv after the clearing.
We should move the clearing to css_release_work_fn(). At that time
no one is holding reference to the cgroup and no one can gain a new
reference to access it.
Reported-by: Toralf Förster <toralf.foerster@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
---
Toralf, Thanks for reporting the bug. I'm not able to repy to your email,
because I was kicked out of the cgroup mailing list so didn't receive
emails from mailing list for a week.
---
kernel/cgroup.c | 19 +++++++++----------
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup.c
index 1c56924..e03fc62 100644
--- a/kernel/cgroup.c
+++ b/kernel/cgroup.c
@@ -4185,6 +4185,15 @@ static void css_release_work_fn(struct work_struct *work)
mutex_unlock(&cgroup_mutex);
+ /*
+ * There are two control paths which try to determine cgroup from
+ * dentry without going through kernfs - cgroupstats_build() and
+ * css_tryget_online_from_dir(). Those are supported by RCU
+ * protecting clearing of cgrp->kn->priv backpointer.
+ */
+ if (!ss && cgroup_parent(cgrp))
+ RCU_INIT_POINTER(*(void __rcu __force **)&cgrp->kn->priv, NULL);
+
call_rcu(&css->rcu_head, css_free_rcu_fn);
}
@@ -4601,16 +4610,6 @@ static int cgroup_rmdir(struct kernfs_node *kn)
cgroup_kn_unlock(kn);
- /*
- * There are two control paths which try to determine cgroup from
- * dentry without going through kernfs - cgroupstats_build() and
- * css_tryget_online_from_dir(). Those are supported by RCU
- * protecting clearing of cgrp->kn->priv backpointer, which should
- * happen after all files under it have been removed.
- */
- if (!ret)
- RCU_INIT_POINTER(*(void __rcu __force **)&kn->priv, NULL);
-
cgroup_put(cgrp);
return ret;
}
--
1.8.0.2
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread[parent not found: <5405A27A.3090605-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]
* [PATCH 2/2] cgroup: check cgroup liveliness before unbreaking kernfs protection [not found] ` <5405A27A.3090605-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> @ 2014-09-02 10:57 ` Li Zefan [not found] ` <5405A2B2.4010406-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> 2014-09-02 15:33 ` [PATCH 1/2] cgroup: Delay the clearing of cgrp->kn->priv Tejun Heo 1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Li Zefan @ 2014-09-02 10:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tejun Heo; +Cc: Toralf Förster, LKML, cgroups When cgroup_kn_lock_live() is called through some kernfs operation and another thread is calling cgroup_rmdir(), we may trigger the warning in cgroup_get(). ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 1228 at kernel/cgroup.c:1034 cgroup_get+0x89/0xa0() ... Call Trace: [<c16ee73d>] dump_stack+0x41/0x52 [<c10468ef>] warn_slowpath_common+0x7f/0xa0 [<c104692d>] warn_slowpath_null+0x1d/0x20 [<c10bb999>] cgroup_get+0x89/0xa0 [<c10bbe58>] cgroup_kn_lock_live+0x28/0x70 [<c10be3c1>] __cgroup_procs_write.isra.26+0x51/0x230 [<c10be5b2>] cgroup_tasks_write+0x12/0x20 [<c10bb7b0>] cgroup_file_write+0x40/0x130 [<c11aee71>] kernfs_fop_write+0xd1/0x160 [<c1148e58>] vfs_write+0x98/0x1e0 [<c114934d>] SyS_write+0x4d/0xa0 [<c16f656b>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x12 ---[ end trace 6f2e0c38c2108a74 ]--- Fix this by calling css_tryget() instead of cgroup_get(). Reported-by: Toralf Förster <toralf.foerster-Mmb7MZpHnFY@public.gmane.org> Signed-off-by: Li Zefan <lizefan-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> --- kernel/cgroup.c | 8 +++++++- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/kernel/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup.c index e03fc62..c8d07e5 100644 --- a/kernel/cgroup.c +++ b/kernel/cgroup.c @@ -1025,6 +1025,11 @@ static umode_t cgroup_file_mode(const struct cftype *cft) return mode; } +static bool cgroup_tryget(struct cgroup *cgrp) +{ + return css_tryget(&cgrp->self); +} + static void cgroup_get(struct cgroup *cgrp) { WARN_ON_ONCE(cgroup_is_dead(cgrp)); @@ -1091,7 +1096,8 @@ static struct cgroup *cgroup_kn_lock_live(struct kernfs_node *kn) * protection against removal. Ensure @cgrp stays accessible and * break the active_ref protection. */ - cgroup_get(cgrp); + if (!cgroup_tryget(cgrp)) + return NULL; kernfs_break_active_protection(kn); mutex_lock(&cgroup_mutex); -- 1.8.0.2 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <5405A2B2.4010406-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] cgroup: check cgroup liveliness before unbreaking kernfs protection [not found] ` <5405A2B2.4010406-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> @ 2014-09-02 15:51 ` Tejun Heo 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Tejun Heo @ 2014-09-02 15:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Li Zefan; +Cc: Toralf Förster, LKML, cgroups On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 06:57:54PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote: > diff --git a/kernel/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup.c > index e03fc62..c8d07e5 100644 > --- a/kernel/cgroup.c > +++ b/kernel/cgroup.c > @@ -1025,6 +1025,11 @@ static umode_t cgroup_file_mode(const struct cftype *cft) > return mode; > } > > +static bool cgroup_tryget(struct cgroup *cgrp) > +{ > + return css_tryget(&cgrp->self); > +} Can you please move this right below cgroup_get() definition? Thanks. -- tejun ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] cgroup: Delay the clearing of cgrp->kn->priv [not found] ` <5405A27A.3090605-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> 2014-09-02 10:57 ` [PATCH 2/2] cgroup: check cgroup liveliness before unbreaking kernfs protection Li Zefan @ 2014-09-02 15:33 ` Tejun Heo [not found] ` <20140902153301.GA17424-Gd/HAXX7CRxy/B6EtB590w@public.gmane.org> 1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Tejun Heo @ 2014-09-02 15:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Li Zefan; +Cc: Toralf Förster, LKML, cgroups Hello, Li. On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 06:56:58PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote: > for ((; ;)) > { > echo $$ > /cgroup/sub/cgroup.procs > ech $$ > /cgce 6f2e0c38c2108a74 ]--- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ copy & paste error? ... > Reported-by: Toralf Förster <toralf.foerster-Mmb7MZpHnFY@public.gmane.org> > Signed-off-by: Li Zefan <lizefan-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> > --- > > Toralf, Thanks for reporting the bug. I'm not able to repy to your email, > because I was kicked out of the cgroup mailing list so didn't receive > emails from mailing list for a week. > > --- > kernel/cgroup.c | 19 +++++++++---------- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup.c > index 1c56924..e03fc62 100644 > --- a/kernel/cgroup.c > +++ b/kernel/cgroup.c > @@ -4185,6 +4185,15 @@ static void css_release_work_fn(struct work_struct *work) > > mutex_unlock(&cgroup_mutex); > > + /* > + * There are two control paths which try to determine cgroup from > + * dentry without going through kernfs - cgroupstats_build() and > + * css_tryget_online_from_dir(). Those are supported by RCU > + * protecting clearing of cgrp->kn->priv backpointer. > + */ > + if (!ss && cgroup_parent(cgrp)) > + RCU_INIT_POINTER(*(void __rcu __force **)&cgrp->kn->priv, NULL); Can we move the above into the preceding else block? I don't think holding cgroup_mutex or not makes any difference here. Also, why do we need the cgroup_parent() check? Do we deref root's kn->priv in the destruction path? If so, can you please note that in the comment? Thanks. -- tejun ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <20140902153301.GA17424-Gd/HAXX7CRxy/B6EtB590w@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] cgroup: Delay the clearing of cgrp->kn->priv [not found] ` <20140902153301.GA17424-Gd/HAXX7CRxy/B6EtB590w@public.gmane.org> @ 2014-09-04 3:35 ` Li Zefan 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Li Zefan @ 2014-09-04 3:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tejun Heo; +Cc: Toralf Förster, LKML, cgroups 于 2014/9/2 23:33, Tejun Heo 写道: > Hello, Li. > > On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 06:56:58PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote: >> for ((; ;)) >> { >> echo $$ > /cgroup/sub/cgroup.procs >> ech $$ > /cgce 6f2e0c38c2108a74 ]--- > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > copy & paste error? > ... oops >> Reported-by: Toralf Förster <toralf.foerster-Mmb7MZpHnFY@public.gmane.org> >> Signed-off-by: Li Zefan <lizefan-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> >> --- >> >> Toralf, Thanks for reporting the bug. I'm not able to repy to your email, >> because I was kicked out of the cgroup mailing list so didn't receive >> emails from mailing list for a week. >> >> --- >> kernel/cgroup.c | 19 +++++++++---------- >> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup.c >> index 1c56924..e03fc62 100644 >> --- a/kernel/cgroup.c >> +++ b/kernel/cgroup.c >> @@ -4185,6 +4185,15 @@ static void css_release_work_fn(struct work_struct *work) >> >> mutex_unlock(&cgroup_mutex); >> >> + /* >> + * There are two control paths which try to determine cgroup from >> + * dentry without going through kernfs - cgroupstats_build() and >> + * css_tryget_online_from_dir(). Those are supported by RCU >> + * protecting clearing of cgrp->kn->priv backpointer. >> + */ >> + if (!ss && cgroup_parent(cgrp)) >> + RCU_INIT_POINTER(*(void __rcu __force **)&cgrp->kn->priv, NULL); > > Can we move the above into the preceding else block? I don't think > holding cgroup_mutex or not makes any difference here. > Also, why do > we need the cgroup_parent() check? Do we deref root's kn->priv in the > destruction path? If so, can you please note that in the comment? > I think the check is not necessary. I was trying to make smaller difference than the original code, and RCU_INIT_POINTER() is in cgroup_rmdir() which won't be called on root cgroup. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-09-04 3:35 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-09-02 10:56 [PATCH 1/2] cgroup: Delay the clearing of cgrp->kn->priv Li Zefan
[not found] ` <5405A27A.3090605-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2014-09-02 10:57 ` [PATCH 2/2] cgroup: check cgroup liveliness before unbreaking kernfs protection Li Zefan
[not found] ` <5405A2B2.4010406-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2014-09-02 15:51 ` Tejun Heo
2014-09-02 15:33 ` [PATCH 1/2] cgroup: Delay the clearing of cgrp->kn->priv Tejun Heo
[not found] ` <20140902153301.GA17424-Gd/HAXX7CRxy/B6EtB590w@public.gmane.org>
2014-09-04 3:35 ` Li Zefan
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox