On Tue, 29 Oct 2019, Shakeel Butt wrote: > +Marco > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 2:03 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon 28-10-19 17:54:05, Shakeel Butt wrote: > > > Syzbot reported the following bug: > > > > > > BUG: KCSAN: data-race in mem_cgroup_select_victim_node / mem_cgroup_select_victim_node > > > > > > write to 0xffff88809fade9b0 of 4 bytes by task 8603 on cpu 0: > > > mem_cgroup_select_victim_node+0xb5/0x3d0 mm/memcontrol.c:1686 > > > try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages+0x175/0x4c0 mm/vmscan.c:3376 > > > reclaim_high.constprop.0+0xf7/0x140 mm/memcontrol.c:2349 > > > mem_cgroup_handle_over_high+0x96/0x180 mm/memcontrol.c:2430 > > > tracehook_notify_resume include/linux/tracehook.h:197 [inline] > > > exit_to_usermode_loop+0x20c/0x2c0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:163 > > > prepare_exit_to_usermode+0x180/0x1a0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:194 > > > swapgs_restore_regs_and_return_to_usermode+0x0/0x40 > > > > > > read to 0xffff88809fade9b0 of 4 bytes by task 7290 on cpu 1: > > > mem_cgroup_select_victim_node+0x92/0x3d0 mm/memcontrol.c:1675 > > > try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages+0x175/0x4c0 mm/vmscan.c:3376 > > > reclaim_high.constprop.0+0xf7/0x140 mm/memcontrol.c:2349 > > > mem_cgroup_handle_over_high+0x96/0x180 mm/memcontrol.c:2430 > > > tracehook_notify_resume include/linux/tracehook.h:197 [inline] > > > exit_to_usermode_loop+0x20c/0x2c0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:163 > > > prepare_exit_to_usermode+0x180/0x1a0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:194 > > > swapgs_restore_regs_and_return_to_usermode+0x0/0x40 > > > > > > mem_cgroup_select_victim_node() can be called concurrently which reads > > > and modifies memcg->last_scanned_node without any synchrnonization. So, > > > read and modify memcg->last_scanned_node with READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() > > > to stop potential reordering. Strictly speaking, READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE alone avoid various bad compiler optimizations, including store tearing, load tearing, etc. This does not add memory barriers to constrain memory ordering. (If this code needs some memory ordering guarantees w.r.t. previous loads/stores then this alone is not enough.) > > I am sorry but I do not understand the problem and the fix. Why does the > > race happen and why does _ONCE fixes it? There is still no > > synchronization. Do you want to prevent from memcg->last_scanned_node > > reloading? > > > > The problem is memcg->last_scanned_node can read and modified > concurrently. Though to me it seems like a tolerable race and not > worth to add an explicit lock. My aim was to make KCSAN happy here to > look elsewhere for the concurrency bugs. However I see that it might > complain next on memcg->scan_nodes. The plain concurrent reads/writes are a data race, which may manifest in various undefined behaviour due to compiler optimizations. The _ONCE will prevent these (KCSAN only reports data races). Note that, "data race" does not necessarily imply "race condition"; some data races are race conditions (usually the more interesting bugs) -- but not *all* data races are race conditions. If there is no race condition here that warrants heavier synchronization (locking etc.), then this patch is all that should be needed. I can't comment on the rest. Thanks, -- Marco
