Re: [PATCH] memcg: net: do not associate sock with unrelated memcg

[Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>]

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 1:52 PM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 1:47 PM Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello, Shakeel!
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:12:33PM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > > We are testing network memory accounting in our setup and noticed
> > > inconsistent network memory usage and often unrelated memcgs network
> > > usage correlates with testing workload. On further inspection, it seems
> > > like mem_cgroup_sk_alloc() is broken in irq context specially for
> > > cgroup v1.
> >
> > A great catch!
> >
> > >
> > > mem_cgroup_sk_alloc() can be called in irq context and kind
> > > of assumes that it can only happen from sk_clone_lock() and the source
> > > sock object has already associated memcg. However in cgroup v1, where
> > > network memory accounting is opt-in, the source sock can be not
> > > associated with any memcg and the new cloned sock can get associated
> > > with unrelated interrupted memcg.
> > >
> > > Cgroup v2 can also suffer if the source sock object was created by
> > > process in the root memcg or if sk_alloc() is called in irq context.
> >
> > Do you mind sharing a call trace?
> >
>
> Sure, see below. I added a dump_stack() in mem_cgroup_sk_alloc().
>
> [  647.255327] CPU: 68 PID: 15859 Comm: ssh Tainted: G           O
>  5.6.0-smp-DEV #1
> [  647.255328] Hardware name: ...
> [  647.255328] Call Trace:
> [  647.255329]  <IRQ>
> [  647.255333]  dump_stack+0x57/0x75
> [  647.255336]  mem_cgroup_sk_alloc+0xe9/0xf0
> [  647.255337]  sk_clone_lock+0x2a7/0x420
> [  647.255339]  inet_csk_clone_lock+0x1b/0x110
> [  647.255340]  tcp_create_openreq_child+0x23/0x3b0
> [  647.255342]  tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock+0x88/0x730
> [  647.255343]  tcp_check_req+0x429/0x560
> [  647.255345]  tcp_v6_rcv+0x72d/0xa40
> [  647.255347]  ip6_protocol_deliver_rcu+0xc9/0x400
> [  647.255348]  ip6_input+0x44/0xd0
> [  647.255349]  ? ip6_protocol_deliver_rcu+0x400/0x400
> [  647.255350]  ip6_rcv_finish+0x71/0x80
> [  647.255351]  ipv6_rcv+0x5b/0xe0
> [  647.255352]  ? ip6_sublist_rcv+0x2e0/0x2e0
> [  647.255354]  process_backlog+0x108/0x1e0
> [  647.255355]  net_rx_action+0x26b/0x460
> [  647.255357]  __do_softirq+0x104/0x2a6
> [  647.255358]  do_softirq_own_stack+0x2a/0x40
> [  647.255359]  </IRQ>
> [  647.255361]  do_softirq.part.19+0x40/0x50
> [  647.255362]  __local_bh_enable_ip+0x51/0x60
> [  647.255363]  ip6_finish_output2+0x23d/0x520
> [  647.255365]  ? ip6table_mangle_hook+0x55/0x160
> [  647.255366]  __ip6_finish_output+0xa1/0x100
> [  647.255367]  ip6_finish_output+0x30/0xd0
> [  647.255368]  ip6_output+0x73/0x120
> [  647.255369]  ? __ip6_finish_output+0x100/0x100
> [  647.255370]  ip6_xmit+0x2e3/0x600
> [  647.255372]  ? ipv6_anycast_cleanup+0x50/0x50
> [  647.255373]  ? inet6_csk_route_socket+0x136/0x1e0
> [  647.255374]  ? skb_free_head+0x1e/0x30
> [  647.255375]  inet6_csk_xmit+0x95/0xf0
> [  647.255377]  __tcp_transmit_skb+0x5b4/0xb20
> [  647.255378]  __tcp_send_ack.part.60+0xa3/0x110
> [  647.255379]  tcp_send_ack+0x1d/0x20
> [  647.255380]  tcp_rcv_state_process+0xe64/0xe80
> [  647.255381]  ? tcp_v6_connect+0x5d1/0x5f0
> [  647.255383]  tcp_v6_do_rcv+0x1b1/0x3f0
> [  647.255384]  ? tcp_v6_do_rcv+0x1b1/0x3f0
> [  647.255385]  __release_sock+0x7f/0xd0
> [  647.255386]  release_sock+0x30/0xa0
> [  647.255388]  __inet_stream_connect+0x1c3/0x3b0
> [  647.255390]  ? prepare_to_wait+0xb0/0xb0
> [  647.255391]  inet_stream_connect+0x3b/0x60
> [  647.255394]  __sys_connect+0x101/0x120
> [  647.255395]  ? __sys_getsockopt+0x11b/0x140
> [  647.255397]  __x64_sys_connect+0x1a/0x20
> [  647.255398]  do_syscall_64+0x51/0x200
> [  647.255399]  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
> [  647.255401] RIP: 0033:0x7f45464fcd50
>
> > Also, shouldn't cgroup_sk_alloc() be changed in a similar way?
> >
>
> I will check cgroup_sk_alloc() too.
>

Yes, cgroup_sk_alloc() should be changed similarly too.