All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nico Pache <npache@redhat.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Rafael Aquini <aquini@redhat.com>,
	Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>, Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>,
	Christoph von Recklinghausen <crecklin@redhat.com>,
	Don Dutile <ddutile@redhat.com>,
	"Herton R . Krzesinski" <herton@redhat.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Joel Savitz <jsavitz@redhat.com>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>,
	stable@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8] oom_kill.c: futex: Don't OOM reap the VMA containing the robust_list_head
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 19:51:50 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1a7944c7-d717-d5af-f71d-92326f7bb7f6@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87k0bzk7e5.ffs@tglx>



On 4/8/22 09:54, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08 2022 at 04:41, Nico Pache wrote:
>> On 4/8/22 04:15, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The following case can still fail:
>>>> robust head (skipped) -> private lock (reaped) -> shared lock (skipped)
>>>
>>> This is still all sorts of confused.. it's a list head, the entries can
>>> be in any random other VMA. You must not remove *any* user memory before
>>> doing the robust thing. Not removing the VMA that contains the head is
>>> pointless in the extreme.
>> Not sure how its pointless if it fixes all the different reproducers we've
>> written for it. As for the private lock case we stated here, we havent been able
>> to reproduce it, but I could see how it can be a potential issue (which is why
>> its noted).
> 
> The below reproduces the problem nicely, i.e. the lock() in the parent
> times out. So why would the OOM killer fail to cause the same problem
> when it reaps the private anon mapping where the private futex sits?
> 
> If you revert the lock order in the child the robust muck works.

Thanks for the reproducer Thomas :)

I think I need to re-up my knowledge around COW and how it effects that stack.
There are increased oddities when you add the pthread library that I cant fully
wrap my head around at the moment.

My confusion lies in how the parent/child share a robust list here, but they
obviously do. In my mind the mut_s would be different in the child/parent after
the fork and pthread_mutex_init (and friends) are done in the child.

Thanks!
-- Nico
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>         tglx
> ---
> #include <errno.h>
> #include <fcntl.h>
> #include <pthread.h>
> #include <time.h>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <string.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
> 
> #include <sys/types.h>
> #include <sys/mman.h>
> 
> static char n[4096];
> 
> int main(void)
> {
> 	pthread_mutexattr_t mat_s, mat_p;
> 	pthread_mutex_t *mut_s, *mut_p;
> 	pthread_barrierattr_t ba;
> 	pthread_barrier_t *b;
> 	struct timespec to;
> 	void *pri, *shr;
> 	int r;
> 
> 	shr = mmap(NULL, sizeof(n), PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
> 		   MAP_SHARED | MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0);
> 
> 	pthread_mutexattr_init(&mat_s);
> 	pthread_mutexattr_setrobust(&mat_s, PTHREAD_MUTEX_ROBUST);
> 	mut_s = shr;
> 	pthread_mutex_init(mut_s, &mat_s);
> 
> 	pthread_barrierattr_init(&ba);
> 	pthread_barrierattr_setpshared(&ba, PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED);
> 	b = shr + 1024;
> 	pthread_barrier_init(b, &ba, 2);
> 
> 	if (!fork()) {
> 		pri = mmap(NULL, 1<<20, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
> 			   MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0);
> 		pthread_mutexattr_init(&mat_p);
> 		pthread_mutexattr_setpshared(&mat_p, PTHREAD_PROCESS_PRIVATE);
> 		pthread_mutexattr_setrobust(&mat_p, PTHREAD_MUTEX_ROBUST);
> 		mut_p = pri;
> 		pthread_mutex_init(mut_p, &mat_p);
> 
> 		// With lock order s, p parent gets timeout
> 		// With lock order p, s parent gets owner died
> 		pthread_mutex_lock(mut_s);
> 		pthread_mutex_lock(mut_p);
> 		// Remove unmap and lock order does not matter
> 		munmap(pri, sizeof(n));
> 		pthread_barrier_wait(b);
> 		printf("child gone\n");
> 	} else {
> 		pthread_barrier_wait(b);
> 		printf("parent lock\n");
> 		clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME, &to);
> 		to.tv_sec += 1;
> 		r = pthread_mutex_timedlock(mut_s, &to);
> 		printf("parent lock returned: %s\n", strerror(r));
> 	}
> 	return 0;
> }
> 


  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-04-11 23:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-04-08  3:28 [PATCH v8] oom_kill.c: futex: Don't OOM reap the VMA containing the robust_list_head Nico Pache
2022-04-08  8:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-04-08  8:37   ` Thomas Gleixner
2022-04-08  8:52     ` Nico Pache
2022-04-08  9:36       ` Michal Hocko
2022-04-08  9:40         ` Nico Pache
2022-04-08  9:59           ` Michal Hocko
2022-04-08 10:36             ` Nico Pache
2022-04-08 10:51               ` Michal Hocko
2022-04-08 11:26                 ` Nico Pache
2022-04-08 11:48                   ` Michal Hocko
2022-04-08  8:41   ` Nico Pache
2022-04-08 13:54     ` Thomas Gleixner
2022-04-08 16:13       ` Joel Savitz
2022-04-08 21:41         ` Thomas Gleixner
2022-04-11  6:48           ` Michal Hocko
2022-04-11  7:47             ` Thomas Gleixner
2022-04-11  9:08               ` Michal Hocko
2022-04-12  0:02                 ` Nico Pache
2022-04-13 16:00                 ` Nico Pache
2022-04-11 23:51       ` Nico Pache [this message]
2022-04-12 16:20         ` Thomas Gleixner
2022-04-12 17:03           ` Nico Pache
2022-04-08 14:41 ` kernel test robot

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=1a7944c7-d717-d5af-f71d-92326f7bb7f6@redhat.com \
    --to=npache@redhat.com \
    --cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=aquini@redhat.com \
    --cc=bhe@redhat.com \
    --cc=crecklin@redhat.com \
    --cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
    --cc=ddutile@redhat.com \
    --cc=dvhart@infradead.org \
    --cc=herton@redhat.com \
    --cc=jsavitz@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=longman@redhat.com \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=stable@kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /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: link
Be 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.