On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 10:12 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: Muchun Song <songmuchun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> commit d38a2b7a9c939e6d7329ab92b96559ccebf7b135 upstream.
>
> If the kmem_cache refcount is greater than one, we should not mark the
> root kmem_cache as dying. If we mark the root kmem_cache dying
> incorrectly, the non-root kmem_cache can never be destroyed. It
> resulted in memory leak when memcg was destroyed. We can use the
> following steps to reproduce.
>
> 1) Use kmem_cache_create() to create a new kmem_cache named A.
> 2) Coincidentally, the kmem_cache A is an alias for kmem_cache B,
> so the refcount of B is just increased.
> 3) Use kmem_cache_destroy() to destroy the kmem_cache A, just
> decrease the B's refcount but mark the B as dying.
> 4) Create a new memory cgroup and alloc memory from the kmem_cache
> B. It leads to create a non-root kmem_cache for allocating memory.
> 5) When destroy the memory cgroup created in the step 4), the
> non-root kmem_cache can never be destroyed.
>
> If we repeat steps 4) and 5), this will cause a lot of memory leak. So
> only when refcount reach zero, we mark the root kmem_cache as dying.
>
> Fixes: 92ee383f6daa ("mm: fix race between kmem_cache destroy, create and deactivate")
> Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Acked-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx>
> Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200716165103.83462-1-songmuchun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> ---
> mm/slab_common.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/mm/slab_common.c
> +++ b/mm/slab_common.c
> @@ -310,6 +310,14 @@ int slab_unmergeable(struct kmem_cache *
> if (s->refcount < 0)
> return 1;
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
> + /*
> + * Skip the dying kmem_cache.
> + */
> + if (s->memcg_params.dying)
> + return 1;
> +#endif
> +
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -832,12 +840,15 @@ static int shutdown_memcg_caches(struct
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static void flush_memcg_workqueue(struct kmem_cache *s)
> +static void memcg_set_kmem_cache_dying(struct kmem_cache *s)
> {
> mutex_lock(&slab_mutex);
> s->memcg_params.dying = true;
> mutex_unlock(&slab_mutex);
We should remove mutex_lock/unlock(&slab_mutex) here, because
we already hold the slab_mutex from kmem_cache_destroy().
> +}
>
> +static void flush_memcg_workqueue(struct kmem_cache *s)
> +{
> /*
> * SLUB deactivates the kmem_caches through call_rcu_sched. Make
> * sure all registered rcu callbacks have been invoked.
> @@ -858,10 +869,6 @@ static inline int shutdown_memcg_caches(
> {
> return 0;
> }
> -
> -static inline void flush_memcg_workqueue(struct kmem_cache *s)
> -{
> -}
> #endif /* CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM */
>
> void slab_kmem_cache_release(struct kmem_cache *s)
> @@ -879,8 +886,6 @@ void kmem_cache_destroy(struct kmem_cach
> if (unlikely(!s))
> return;
>
> - flush_memcg_workqueue(s);
> -
> get_online_cpus();
> get_online_mems();
>
> @@ -890,6 +895,22 @@ void kmem_cache_destroy(struct kmem_cach
> if (s->refcount)
> goto out_unlock;
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
> + memcg_set_kmem_cache_dying(s);
> +
> + mutex_unlock(&slab_mutex);
> +
> + put_online_mems();
> + put_online_cpus();
> +
> + flush_memcg_workqueue(s);
> +
> + get_online_cpus();
> + get_online_mems();
> +
> + mutex_lock(&slab_mutex);
> +#endif
> +
> err = shutdown_memcg_caches(s);
> if (!err)
> err = shutdown_cache(s);
>
>
--
Yours,
Muchun
