Re: [PATCH 02/18] mm: memcontrol: fix theoretical race in charge moving

Shakeel Butt
2020-04-22T18:01:59Z

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 10:42 AM Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 09:51:20AM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 3:11 PM Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> wrote:
> > > @@ -5426,15 +5420,23 @@ static int mem_cgroup_move_account(struct page *page,
> > > }
> > >
> > > /*
> > > + * All state has been migrated, let's switch to the new memcg.
> > > + *
> > > * It is safe to change page->mem_cgroup here because the page
> > > - * is referenced, charged, and isolated - we can't race with
> > > - * uncharging, charging, migration, or LRU putback.
> > > + * is referenced, charged, isolated, and locked: we can't race
> > > + * with (un)charging, migration, LRU putback, or anything else
> > > + * that would rely on a stable page->mem_cgroup.
> > > + *
> > > + * Note that lock_page_memcg is a memcg lock, not a page lock,
> > > + * to save space. As soon as we switch page->mem_cgroup to a
> > > + * new memcg that isn't locked, the above state can change
> > > + * concurrently again. Make sure we're truly done with it.
> > > */
> > > + smp_mb();
> >
> > You said theoretical race in the subject but the above comment
> > convinced me that smp_mb() is required. So, why is the race still
> > theoretical?
>
> Sorry about the confusion.
>
> I said theoretical because I spotted it while thinking about the
> code. I'm not aware of any real users that suffered the consequences
> of this race condition. But they could exist in theory :-)
>
> I think it's a real bug that needs fixing.

Thanks for the clarification. I would suggest removing "theoretical"
from the subject as it undermines that a real bug is fixed by the
patch.