[PATCH 5.7 235/265] mm: memcontrol: handle div0 crash race condition in memory.low

Sasha Levin
2020-06-29T18:37:32Z

From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>

commit cd324edce598ebddde44162a2aa01321c1261b9e upstream.

Tejun reports seeing rare div0 crashes in memory.low stress testing:

RIP: 0010:mem_cgroup_calculate_protection+0xed/0x150
Code: 0f 46 d1 4c 39 d8 72 57 f6 05 16 d6 42 01 40 74 1f 4c 39 d8 76 1a 4c 39 d1 76 15 4c 29 d1 4c 29 d8 4d 29 d9 31 d2 48 0f af c1 <49> f7 f1 49 01 c2 4c 89 96 38 01 00 00 5d c3 48 0f af c7 31 d2 49
RSP: 0018:ffffa14e01d6fcd0 EFLAGS: 00010246
RAX: 000000000243e384 RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: 0000000000008f4b
RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: ffff8b89bee84000 RDI: 0000000000000000
RBP: ffffa14e01d6fcd0 R08: ffff8b89ca7d40f8 R09: 0000000000000000
R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 00000000006422f7 R12: 0000000000000000
R13: ffff8b89d9617000 R14: ffff8b89bee84000 R15: ffffa14e01d6fdb8
FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff8b8a1f1c0000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
CR2: 00007f93b1fc175b CR3: 000000016100a000 CR4: 0000000000340ea0
Call Trace:
shrink_node+0x1e5/0x6c0
balance_pgdat+0x32d/0x5f0
kswapd+0x1d7/0x3d0
kthread+0x11c/0x160
ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30

This happens when parent_usage == siblings_protected.

We check that usage is bigger than protected, which should imply
parent_usage being bigger than siblings_protected. However, we don't
read (or even update) these values atomically, and they can be out of
sync as the memory state changes under us. A bit of fluctuation around
the target protection isn't a big deal, but we need to handle the div0
case.

Check the parent state explicitly to make sure we have a reasonable
positive value for the divisor.

Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200615140658.601684-1-hannes@cmpxchg.org
Fixes: 8a931f801340 ("mm: memcontrol: recursive memory.low protection")
Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Reported-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Acked-by: Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>
Cc: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
---
mm/memcontrol.c | 9 +++++++--
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index a3b97f1039665..1b05e25d8aef2 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -6349,11 +6349,16 @@ static unsigned long effective_protection(unsigned long usage,
* We're using unprotected memory for the weight so that if
* some cgroups DO claim explicit protection, we don't protect
* the same bytes twice.
+ *
+ * Check both usage and parent_usage against the respective
+ * protected values. One should imply the other, but they
+ * aren't read atomically - make sure the division is sane.
*/
if (!(cgrp_dfl_root.flags & CGRP_ROOT_MEMORY_RECURSIVE_PROT))
return ep;
-
- if (parent_effective > siblings_protected && usage > protected) {
+ if (parent_effective > siblings_protected &&
+ parent_usage > siblings_protected &&
+ usage > protected) {
unsigned long unclaimed;

unclaimed = parent_effective - siblings_protected;
--
2.25.1