On Mon 07-10-19 14:59:02, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 10:16:21 +0200 Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Fri 04-10-19 14:57:01, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Fri 04-10-19 08:31:49, Qian Cai wrote:
> > > > Long time ago, there fixed a similar deadlock in show_slab_objects()
> > > > [1]. However, it is apparently due to the commits like 01fb58bcba63
> > > > ("slab: remove synchronous synchronize_sched() from memcg cache
> > > > deactivation path") and 03afc0e25f7f ("slab: get_online_mems for
> > > > kmem_cache_{create,destroy,shrink}"), this kind of deadlock is back by
> > > > just reading files in /sys/kernel/slab which will generate a lockdep
> > > > splat below.
> > > >
> > > > Since the "mem_hotplug_lock" here is only to obtain a stable online node
> > > > mask while racing with NUMA node hotplug, in the worst case, the results
> > > > may me miscalculated while doing NUMA node hotplug, but they shall be
> > > > corrected by later reads of the same files.
> > >
> > > I think it is important to mention that this doesn't expose the
> > > show_slab_objects to use-after-free. There is only a single path that
> > > might really race here and that is the slab hotplug notifier callback
> > > __kmem_cache_shrink (via slab_mem_going_offline_callback) but that path
> > > doesn't really destroy kmem_cache_node data structures.
>
> Yes, I noted this during review. It's a bit subtle and is worthy of
> more than a changelog note, I think. How about this?
>
> --- a/mm/slub.c~mm-slub-fix-a-deadlock-in-show_slab_objects-fix
> +++ a/mm/slub.c
> @@ -4851,6 +4851,10 @@ static ssize_t show_slab_objects(struct
> * already held which will conflict with an existing lock order:
> *
> * mem_hotplug_lock->slab_mutex->kernfs_mutex
> + *
> + * We don't really need mem_hotplug_lock (to hold off
> + * slab_mem_going_offline_callback()) here because slab's memory hot
> + * unplug code doesn't destroy the kmem_cache->node[] data.
> */
Yes please!
> #ifdef CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG
> _
>
> > Andrew, please add this to the changelog so that we do not have to
> > scratch heads again when looking into that code.
>
> I did that as well.
Thanks!
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
