From: David Vernet <void@manifault.com> To: akpm@linux-foundation.org Cc: tj@kernel.org, roman.gushchin@linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, mhocko@kernel.org, shakeelb@google.com, kernel-team@fb.com, void@manifault.com Subject: [PATCH 4/5] cgroup: Removing racy check in test_memcg_sock() Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 08:57:28 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20220422155728.3055914-5-void@manifault.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20220422155728.3055914-1-void@manifault.com> test_memcg_sock() in the cgroup memcg tests, verifies expected memory accounting for sockets. The test forks a process which functions as a TCP server, and sends large buffers back and forth between itself (as the TCP client) and the forked TCP server. While doing so, it verifies that memory.current and memory.stat.sock look correct. There is currently a check in tcp_client() which asserts memory.current >= memory.stat.sock. This check is racy, as between memory.current and memory.stat.sock being queried, a packet could come in which causes mem_cgroup_charge_skmem() to be invoked. This could cause memory.stat.sock to exceed memory.current. Reversing the order of querying doesn't address the problem either, as memory may be reclaimed between the two calls. Instead, this patch just removes that assertion altogether, and instead relies on the values_close() check that follows to validate the expected accounting. Signed-off-by: David Vernet <void@manifault.com> --- tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c | 3 --- 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c index d88e0ca3f3d1..c4735fa36a3d 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c @@ -993,9 +993,6 @@ static int tcp_client(const char *cgroup, unsigned short port) if (current < 0 || sock < 0) goto close_sk; - if (current < sock) - goto close_sk; - if (values_close(current, sock, 10)) { ret = KSFT_PASS; break; -- 2.30.2
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: David Vernet <void-gq6j2QGBifHby3iVrkZq2A@public.gmane.org> To: akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org Cc: tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, roman.gushchin-fxUVXftIFDnyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, hannes-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org, mhocko-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, shakeelb-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, kernel-team-b10kYP2dOMg@public.gmane.org, void-gq6j2QGBifHby3iVrkZq2A@public.gmane.org Subject: [PATCH 4/5] cgroup: Removing racy check in test_memcg_sock() Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 08:57:28 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20220422155728.3055914-5-void@manifault.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20220422155728.3055914-1-void-gq6j2QGBifHby3iVrkZq2A@public.gmane.org> test_memcg_sock() in the cgroup memcg tests, verifies expected memory accounting for sockets. The test forks a process which functions as a TCP server, and sends large buffers back and forth between itself (as the TCP client) and the forked TCP server. While doing so, it verifies that memory.current and memory.stat.sock look correct. There is currently a check in tcp_client() which asserts memory.current >= memory.stat.sock. This check is racy, as between memory.current and memory.stat.sock being queried, a packet could come in which causes mem_cgroup_charge_skmem() to be invoked. This could cause memory.stat.sock to exceed memory.current. Reversing the order of querying doesn't address the problem either, as memory may be reclaimed between the two calls. Instead, this patch just removes that assertion altogether, and instead relies on the values_close() check that follows to validate the expected accounting. Signed-off-by: David Vernet <void-gq6j2QGBifHby3iVrkZq2A@public.gmane.org> --- tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c | 3 --- 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c index d88e0ca3f3d1..c4735fa36a3d 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c @@ -993,9 +993,6 @@ static int tcp_client(const char *cgroup, unsigned short port) if (current < 0 || sock < 0) goto close_sk; - if (current < sock) - goto close_sk; - if (values_close(current, sock, 10)) { ret = KSFT_PASS; break; -- 2.30.2
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-04-22 15:58 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2022-04-22 15:57 [PATCH 0/5] Fix bugs in memcontroller cgroup tests David Vernet 2022-04-22 15:57 ` David Vernet 2022-04-22 15:57 ` [PATCH 1/5] cgroups: Refactor children cgroups in memcg tests David Vernet 2022-04-22 15:57 ` David Vernet 2022-04-22 23:04 ` Roman Gushchin 2022-04-22 23:04 ` Roman Gushchin 2022-04-23 11:30 ` David Vernet 2022-04-23 11:30 ` David Vernet 2022-04-23 15:19 ` Roman Gushchin 2022-04-23 15:19 ` Roman Gushchin 2022-04-23 15:33 ` David Vernet 2022-04-23 15:33 ` David Vernet 2022-04-22 15:57 ` [PATCH 2/5] cgroup: Account for memory_recursiveprot in test_memcg_low() David Vernet 2022-04-22 15:57 ` David Vernet 2022-04-22 23:06 ` Roman Gushchin 2022-04-22 23:06 ` Roman Gushchin 2022-04-23 11:33 ` David Vernet 2022-04-23 11:33 ` David Vernet 2022-04-22 15:57 ` [PATCH 3/5] cgroup: Account for memory_localevents in test_memcg_oom_group_leaf_events() David Vernet 2022-04-22 15:57 ` David Vernet 2022-04-22 23:14 ` Roman Gushchin 2022-04-22 23:14 ` Roman Gushchin 2022-04-23 11:36 ` David Vernet 2022-04-23 11:36 ` David Vernet 2022-04-22 15:57 ` David Vernet [this message] 2022-04-22 15:57 ` [PATCH 4/5] cgroup: Removing racy check in test_memcg_sock() David Vernet 2022-04-22 23:50 ` Roman Gushchin 2022-04-22 23:50 ` Roman Gushchin 2022-04-23 11:50 ` David Vernet 2022-04-23 11:50 ` David Vernet 2022-04-22 15:57 ` [PATCH 5/5] cgroup: Fix racy check in alloc_pagecache_max_30M() helper function David Vernet 2022-04-22 15:57 ` David Vernet 2022-04-22 23:56 ` Roman Gushchin 2022-04-22 23:56 ` Roman Gushchin
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20220422155728.3055914-5-void@manifault.com \ --to=void@manifault.com \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \ --cc=kernel-team@fb.com \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \ --cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \ --cc=shakeelb@google.com \ --cc=tj@kernel.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.