Re: [RFC PATCH] mm/vmalloc: fix vmalloc which may return null if called with __GFP_NOFAIL

Barry Song
2024-05-09T08:32:16Z

On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 8:21 PM Hailong Liu <hailong.liu@oppo.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 09. May 09:48, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 08-05-24 20:58:08, hailong.liu@oppo.com wrote:
> > > From: "Hailong.Liu" <hailong.liu@oppo.com>
> > >
> > > Commit a421ef303008 ("mm: allow !GFP_KERNEL allocations for kvmalloc")
> > > includes support for __GFP_NOFAIL, but it presents a conflict with
> > > commit dd544141b9eb ("vmalloc: back off when the current task is
> > > OOM-killed"). A possible scenario is as belows:
> > >
> > > process-a
> > > kvcalloc(n, m, GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOFAIL)
> > > __vmalloc_node_range()
> > > __vmalloc_area_node()
> > > vm_area_alloc_pages()
> > > --> oom-killer send SIGKILL to process-a
> > > if (fatal_signal_pending(current)) break;
> > > --> return NULL;
> > >
> > > to fix this, do not check fatal_signal_pending() in vm_area_alloc_pages()
> > > if __GFP_NOFAIL set.
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Oven <liyangouwen1@oppo.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Hailong.Liu <hailong.liu@oppo.com>
> > > ---
> > > mm/vmalloc.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> > > index 6641be0ca80b..2f359d08bf8d 100644
> > > --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> > > +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> > > @@ -3560,7 +3560,7 @@ vm_area_alloc_pages(gfp_t gfp, int nid,
> > >
> > > /* High-order pages or fallback path if "bulk" fails. */
> > > while (nr_allocated < nr_pages) {
> > > - if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
> > > + if (!(gfp & __GFP_NOFAIL) && fatal_signal_pending(current))
> >
> > Use nofail instead of gfp & __GFP_NOFAIL.
> >
> > Other than that looks good to me. After that is fixed, please feel free
> > to add Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> >
> > I believe this should also have Fixes: 9376130c390a ("mm/vmalloc: add support for __GFP_NOFAIL")
> > --
> > Michal Hocko
> > SUSE Labs
>
> Thanks for the review and the Ack!
>
> Add Fixes in V2 patch.
>
> IIUC, nofail could not used for this case.
>
> /*
> * For order-0 pages we make use of bulk allocator, if
> * the page array is partly or not at all populated due
> * to fails, fallback to a single page allocator that is
> * more permissive.
> */
> if (!order) {
> /* bulk allocator doesn't support nofail req. officially */
> xxx
> -> nofail = false;

isn't it another bug that needs a fix?

> } else if (gfp & __GFP_NOFAIL) {
> /*
> * Higher order nofail allocations are really expensive and
> * potentially dangerous (pre-mature OOM, disruptive reclaim
> * and compaction etc.
> */
> alloc_gfp &= ~__GFP_NOFAIL;
> nofail = true;
> }
>
> /* High-order pages or fallback path if "bulk" fails. */
> while (nr_allocated < nr_pages) {
>
> -> nofail is false here if bulk allocator fails.
> if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
> break;
>
> --
>
> Best Regards,
> Hailong.