lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Nov]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 2/2] mm: avoid slub allocation while holding list_lock
On Sat, Nov 09, 2019 at 08:52:29PM +0000, Christopher Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Nov 2019, Yu Zhao wrote:
>
> > If we are already under list_lock, don't call kmalloc(). Otherwise we
> > will run into deadlock because kmalloc() also tries to grab the same
> > lock.
>
> How did this happen? The kmalloc needs to be always done before the
> list_lock is taken.
>
> > Fixing the problem by using a static bitmap instead.
> >
> > WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
> > --------------------------------------------
> > mount-encrypted/4921 is trying to acquire lock:
> > (&(&n->list_lock)->rlock){-.-.}, at: ___slab_alloc+0x104/0x437
> >
> > but task is already holding lock:
> > (&(&n->list_lock)->rlock){-.-.}, at: __kmem_cache_shutdown+0x81/0x3cb
> >
> > other info that might help us debug this:
> > Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> >
> > CPU0
> > ----
> > lock(&(&n->list_lock)->rlock);
> > lock(&(&n->list_lock)->rlock);
> >
> > *** DEADLOCK ***
>
>
> Ahh. list_slab_objects() in shutdown?
>
> There is a much easier fix for this:
>
>
>
> [FIX] slub: Remove kmalloc under list_lock from list_slab_objects()
>
> list_slab_objects() is called when a slab is destroyed and there are objects still left
> to list the objects in the syslog. This is a pretty rare event.
>
> And there it seems we take the list_lock and call kmalloc while holding that lock.
>
> Perform the allocation in free_partial() before the list_lock is taken.
>
> Fixes: bbd7d57bfe852d9788bae5fb171c7edb4021d8ac ("slub: Potential stack overflow")
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
>
> Index: linux/mm/slub.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/mm/slub.c 2019-10-15 13:54:57.032655296 +0000
> +++ linux/mm/slub.c 2019-11-09 20:43:52.374187381 +0000
> @@ -3690,14 +3690,11 @@ error:
> }
>
> static void list_slab_objects(struct kmem_cache *s, struct page *page,
> - const char *text)
> + const char *text, unsigned long *map)
> {
> #ifdef CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG
> void *addr = page_address(page);
> void *p;
> - unsigned long *map = bitmap_zalloc(page->objects, GFP_ATOMIC);
> - if (!map)
> - return;
> slab_err(s, page, text, s->name);
> slab_lock(page);
>
> @@ -3723,6 +3720,10 @@ static void free_partial(struct kmem_cac
> {
> LIST_HEAD(discard);
> struct page *page, *h;
> + unsigned long *map = bitmap_alloc(oo_objects(s->max), GFP_KERNEL);
> +
> + if (!map)
> + return;

What would happen if we are trying to allocate from the slab that is
being shut down? And shouldn't the allocation be conditional (i.e.,
only when CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG=y)?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-11-10 00:02    [W:0.456 / U:0.528 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site