On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:19:02PM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 10:58 AM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > I don't think you can ignore the flushing. The __free_once() in
> > ___cache_free() assumes there is a space available.
> >
> > BTW do_drain() also have the same issue.
> >
> > Why not move slabs_destroy() after we update ac->avail and memmove()?
>
> Ming, can you please try the following patch?
>
>
> From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> [PATCH] mm: slab: fix potential infinite recursion in ___cache_free
>
> With the commit 10befea91b61 ("mm: memcg/slab: use a single set of
> kmem_caches for all allocations"), it becomes possible to call kfree()
> from the slabs_destroy(). However if slabs_destroy() is being called for
> the array_cache of the local CPU then this opens the potential scenario
> of infinite recursion because kfree() called from slabs_destroy() can
> call slabs_destroy() with the same array_cache of the local CPU. Since
> the array_cache of the local CPU is not updated before calling
> slabs_destroy(), it will try to free the same pages.
>
> To fix the issue, simply update the cache before calling
> slabs_destroy().
>
> Signed-off-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/slab.c | 8 ++++++--
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c
> index 3160dff6fd76..f658e86ec8ce 100644
> --- a/mm/slab.c
> +++ b/mm/slab.c
> @@ -1632,6 +1632,10 @@ static void slab_destroy(struct kmem_cache *cachep, struct page *page)
> kmem_cache_free(cachep->freelist_cache, freelist);
> }
>
> +/*
> + * Update the size of the caches before calling slabs_destroy as it may
> + * recursively call kfree.
> + */
> static void slabs_destroy(struct kmem_cache *cachep, struct list_head *list)
> {
> struct page *page, *n;
> @@ -2153,8 +2157,8 @@ static void do_drain(void *arg)
> spin_lock(&n->list_lock);
> free_block(cachep, ac->entry, ac->avail, node, &list);
> spin_unlock(&n->list_lock);
> - slabs_destroy(cachep, &list);
> ac->avail = 0;
> + slabs_destroy(cachep, &list);
> }
>
> static void drain_cpu_caches(struct kmem_cache *cachep)
> @@ -3402,9 +3406,9 @@ static void cache_flusharray(struct kmem_cache *cachep, struct array_cache *ac)
> }
> #endif
> spin_unlock(&n->list_lock);
> - slabs_destroy(cachep, &list);
> ac->avail -= batchcount;
> memmove(ac->entry, &(ac->entry[batchcount]), sizeof(void *)*ac->avail);
> + slabs_destroy(cachep, &list);
> }
The issue can't be reproduced after applying this patch:
Tested-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks,
Ming
