FAILED: patch "[PATCH] mm: memcg: synchronize objcg lists with a dedicated spinlock" failed to apply to 5.10-stable tree

PATCH [email protected] 2 participants 3 messages Feb 13, 2022 – Feb 17, 2022

Subsystems (3)

Stable branch Memory management memcg

lore

Share & tools

lore

[email protected]

author maintainer

2022-02-13 11:23 UTC #0 lore raw

The patch below does not apply to the 5.10-stable tree.
If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to <[email protected]>.

thanks,

greg k-h

------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------

From 0764db9b49c932b89ee4d9e3236dff4bb07b4a66 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Roman Gushchin <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:32:32 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] mm: memcg: synchronize objcg lists with a dedicated spinlock

Alexander reported a circular lock dependency revealed by the mmap1 ltp test:

LOCKDEP_CIRCULAR (suite: ltp, case: mtest06 (mmap1))

          WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
          5.17.0-20220113.rc0.git0.f2211f194038.300.fc35.s390x+debug #1 Not tainted
          ------------------------------------------------------
          mmap1/202299 is trying to acquire lock:
          00000001892c0188 (css_set_lock){..-.}-{2:2}, at: obj_cgroup_release+0x4a/0xe0
          but task is already holding lock:
          00000000ca3b3818 (&sighand->siglock){-.-.}-{2:2}, at: force_sig_info_to_task+0x38/0x180
          which lock already depends on the new lock.
          the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
          -> #1 (&sighand->siglock){-.-.}-{2:2}:
                 __lock_acquire+0x604/0xbd8
                 lock_acquire.part.0+0xe2/0x238
                 lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
                 _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x6a/0xd8
                 __lock_task_sighand+0x90/0x190
                 cgroup_freeze_task+0x2e/0x90
                 cgroup_migrate_execute+0x11c/0x608
                 cgroup_update_dfl_csses+0x246/0x270
                 cgroup_subtree_control_write+0x238/0x518
                 kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x13e/0x1e0
                 new_sync_write+0x100/0x190
                 vfs_write+0x22c/0x2d8
                 ksys_write+0x6c/0xf8
                 __do_syscall+0x1da/0x208
                 system_call+0x82/0xb0
          -> #0 (css_set_lock){..-.}-{2:2}:
                 check_prev_add+0xe0/0xed8
                 validate_chain+0x736/0xb20
                 __lock_acquire+0x604/0xbd8
                 lock_acquire.part.0+0xe2/0x238
                 lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
                 _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x6a/0xd8
                 obj_cgroup_release+0x4a/0xe0
                 percpu_ref_put_many.constprop.0+0x150/0x168
                 drain_obj_stock+0x94/0xe8
                 refill_obj_stock+0x94/0x278
                 obj_cgroup_charge+0x164/0x1d8
                 kmem_cache_alloc+0xac/0x528
                 __sigqueue_alloc+0x150/0x308
                 __send_signal+0x260/0x550
                 send_signal+0x7e/0x348
                 force_sig_info_to_task+0x104/0x180
                 force_sig_fault+0x48/0x58
                 __do_pgm_check+0x120/0x1f0
                 pgm_check_handler+0x11e/0x180
          other info that might help us debug this:
           Possible unsafe locking scenario:
                 CPU0                    CPU1
                 ----                    ----
            lock(&sighand->siglock);
                                         lock(css_set_lock);
                                         lock(&sighand->siglock);
            lock(css_set_lock);
           *** DEADLOCK ***
          2 locks held by mmap1/202299:
           #0: 00000000ca3b3818 (&sighand->siglock){-.-.}-{2:2}, at: force_sig_info_to_task+0x38/0x180
           #1: 00000001892ad560 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:2}, at: percpu_ref_put_many.constprop.0+0x0/0x168
          stack backtrace:
          CPU: 15 PID: 202299 Comm: mmap1 Not tainted 5.17.0-20220113.rc0.git0.f2211f194038.300.fc35.s390x+debug #1
          Hardware name: IBM 3906 M04 704 (LPAR)
          Call Trace:
            dump_stack_lvl+0x76/0x98
            check_noncircular+0x136/0x158
            check_prev_add+0xe0/0xed8
            validate_chain+0x736/0xb20
            __lock_acquire+0x604/0xbd8
            lock_acquire.part.0+0xe2/0x238
            lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
            _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x6a/0xd8
            obj_cgroup_release+0x4a/0xe0
            percpu_ref_put_many.constprop.0+0x150/0x168
            drain_obj_stock+0x94/0xe8
            refill_obj_stock+0x94/0x278
            obj_cgroup_charge+0x164/0x1d8
            kmem_cache_alloc+0xac/0x528
            __sigqueue_alloc+0x150/0x308
            __send_signal+0x260/0x550
            send_signal+0x7e/0x348
            force_sig_info_to_task+0x104/0x180
            force_sig_fault+0x48/0x58
            __do_pgm_check+0x120/0x1f0
            pgm_check_handler+0x11e/0x180
          INFO: lockdep is turned off.

In this example a slab allocation from __send_signal() caused a refilling and draining of a percpu objcg stock, resulted in a releasing of another non-related objcg. Objcg release path requires taking the css_set_lock, which is used to synchronize objcg lists.

This can create a circular dependency with the sighandler lock, which is taken with the locked css_set_lock by the freezer code (to freeze a task).

In general it seems that using css_set_lock to synchronize objcg lists makes any slab allocations and deallocation with the locked css_set_lock and any intervened locks risky.

To fix the problem and make the code more robust let's stop using css_set_lock to synchronize objcg lists and use a new dedicated spinlock instead.

Link https://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected] open here

Fixes bf4f059954dc ("mm: memcg/slab: obj_cgroup API")

Signed-off-by Roman Gushchin <[email protected]>

Reported-by Alexander Egorenkov <[email protected]>

Tested-by Alexander Egorenkov <[email protected]>

Reviewed-by Waiman Long <[email protected]>

Acked-by Tejun Heo <[email protected]>

Reviewed-by Shakeel Butt <[email protected]>

Reviewed-by Jeremy Linton <[email protected]>

Tested-by Jeremy Linton <[email protected]>

Cc Johannes Weiner <[email protected]>

Cc <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by Andrew Morton <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>

include/linux/memcontrol.h +3 -2

index b72d75141e12..0abbd685703b 100644
@@ -219,7 +219,7 @@ struct obj_cgroup {
 	struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
 	atomic_t nr_charged_bytes;
 	union {
-		struct list_head list;
+		struct list_head list; /* protected by objcg_lock */
 		struct rcu_head rcu;
 	};
 };

@@ -315,7 +315,8 @@ struct mem_cgroup {
 #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
 	int kmemcg_id;
 	struct obj_cgroup __rcu *objcg;
-	struct list_head objcg_list; /* list of inherited objcgs */
+	/* list of inherited objcgs, protected by objcg_lock */
+	struct list_head objcg_list;
 #endif
 
 	MEMCG_PADDING(_pad2_);

mm/memcontrol.c +5 -5

index 09d342c7cbd0..36e9f38c919d 100644
@@ -254,7 +254,7 @@ struct mem_cgroup *vmpressure_to_memcg(struct vmpressure *vmpr)
 }
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
-extern spinlock_t css_set_lock;
+static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(objcg_lock);
 
 bool mem_cgroup_kmem_disabled(void)
 {

@@ -298,9 +298,9 @@ static void obj_cgroup_release(struct percpu_ref *ref)
 	if (nr_pages)
 		obj_cgroup_uncharge_pages(objcg, nr_pages);
 
-	spin_lock_irqsave(&css_set_lock, flags);
+	spin_lock_irqsave(&objcg_lock, flags);
 	list_del(&objcg->list);
-	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&css_set_lock, flags);
+	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&objcg_lock, flags);
 
 	percpu_ref_exit(ref);
 	kfree_rcu(objcg, rcu);

@@ -332,7 +332,7 @@ static void memcg_reparent_objcgs(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
 
 	objcg = rcu_replace_pointer(memcg->objcg, NULL, true);
 
-	spin_lock_irq(&css_set_lock);
+	spin_lock_irq(&objcg_lock);
 
 	/* 1) Ready to reparent active objcg. */
 	list_add(&objcg->list, &memcg->objcg_list);

@@ -342,7 +342,7 @@ static void memcg_reparent_objcgs(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
 	/* 3) Move already reparented objcgs to the parent's list */
 	list_splice(&memcg->objcg_list, &parent->objcg_list);
 
-	spin_unlock_irq(&css_set_lock);
+	spin_unlock_irq(&objcg_lock);
 
 	percpu_ref_kill(&objcg->refcnt);
 }

Roman Gushchin

Tested-by Alexander Egorenkov Reviewed-by Waiman Long Acked-by Tejun Heo Reviewed-by Shakeel Butt Reviewed-by Jeremy Linton Tested-by Jeremy Linton

2022-02-14 21:07 UTC #1 lore raw

Quoted 6 lines · Greg Kroah-Hartman

The patch below does not apply to the 5.10-stable tree.
If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to <[email protected]>.

Quoted 6 lines

thanks,
greg k-h
------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------

Hi Greg!

Below is the backport of 0764db9b49c9 ("mm: memcg: synchronize objcg lists with a dedicated spinlock") to 5.10-stable.

Thanks!

From 43272d8809626549b7392d91e694afa74810fb00 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Roman Gushchin <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:32:32 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] mm: memcg: synchronize objcg lists with a dedicated spinlock