Re: [PATCH] mm/slab_common: Deleting kobject in kmem_cache_destroy() without holding slab_mutex/cpu_hotplug_lock

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 8/9/22 18:25, Roman Gushchin wrote:
On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 04:59:01PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
A circular locking problem is reported by lockdep due to the following
circular locking dependency.

   +--> cpu_hotplug_lock --> slab_mutex --> kn->active#126 --+
   |                                                         |
   +---------------------------------------------------------+

One way to break this circular locking chain is to avoid holding
cpu_hotplug_lock and slab_mutex while deleting the kobject in
sysfs_slab_unlink() which should be equivalent to doing a write_lock
and write_unlock pair of the kn->active virtual lock.

Since the kobject structures are not protected by slab_mutex or the
cpu_hotplug_lock, we can certainly release those locks before doing
the delete operation.

Move sysfs_slab_unlink() and sysfs_slab_release() to the newly
created kmem_cache_release() and call it outside the slab_mutex &
cpu_hotplug_lock critical sections.

Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
  mm/slab_common.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
  1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/slab_common.c b/mm/slab_common.c
index 17996649cfe3..9274fb03563e 100644
--- a/mm/slab_common.c
+++ b/mm/slab_common.c
@@ -392,6 +392,30 @@ kmem_cache_create(const char *name, unsigned int size, unsigned int align,
  }
  EXPORT_SYMBOL(kmem_cache_create);
+#ifdef SLAB_SUPPORTS_SYSFS
+/*
+ * For a given kmem_cache, kmem_cache_destroy() should only be called
+ * once or there will be a use-after-free problem. The actual deletion
+ * and release of the kobject does not need slab_mutex or cpu_hotplug_lock
+ * protection. So they are now done without holding those locks.
+ */
+static void kmem_cache_release(struct kmem_cache *s, bool workfn)
+{
+	if (!workfn)
+		sysfs_slab_unlink(s);
+
+	if (workfn || !(s->flags & SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU))
+		sysfs_slab_release(s);
+	else
+		schedule_work(&slab_caches_to_rcu_destroy_work);
+}
+#else
+static inline void kmem_cache_release(struct kmem_cache *s, bool workfn)
+{
+	slab_kmem_cache_release(s);
+}
+#endif
+
  static void slab_caches_to_rcu_destroy_workfn(struct work_struct *work)
  {
  	LIST_HEAD(to_destroy);
@@ -418,11 +442,7 @@ static void slab_caches_to_rcu_destroy_workfn(struct work_struct *work)
  	list_for_each_entry_safe(s, s2, &to_destroy, list) {
  		debugfs_slab_release(s);
  		kfence_shutdown_cache(s);
-#ifdef SLAB_SUPPORTS_SYSFS
-		sysfs_slab_release(s);
-#else
-		slab_kmem_cache_release(s);
-#endif
+		kmem_cache_release(s, true);
Hi Waiman!

As I understand, with SLAB_SUPPORTS_SYSFS kmem_cache_release() can effectively call
into itself: first it's called with workfn == false from shutdown_cache() and
then optionally it's scheduled to call itself from a work context with
workfn == true just to call sysfs_slab_release(). Is it right?

If !SLAB_SUPPORTS_SYSFS, shutdown_cache() optionally adds kmem_cache to the
slab_caches_to_rcu_destroy list and calls kmem_cache_release(s, false) ==
slab_kmem_cache_release(). How it's then removed from the list?

Overall the patch is a bit hard to follow (not like this code was easy to read
before, so can't blame the patch). But I wonder if it will make things simpler
to decouple kmem_cache_release(workfn == true) and kmem_cache_release(workfn == false)
into 2 different helpers? Or at least add a bold comment on how things are supposed
to work.

Thanks!

You are right. I agree that it can be hard to read. Simpler is always better. Will post a v2 with the change suggested.

Thanks,
Longman





[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux