linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Nico Pache <npache@redhat.com>, 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: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 18:20:40 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87h76yff3b.ffs@tglx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1a7944c7-d717-d5af-f71d-92326f7bb7f6@redhat.com>

On Mon, Apr 11 2022 at 19:51, Nico Pache wrote:
> On 4/8/22 09:54, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> 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.

The pthread library functions are just conveniance so I did not have to
hand code the futex and robust list handling.

> 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.

They don't share a robust list, each thread has it's own.

The shared mutex mut_s is initialized in the parent before fork and it's
the same address in the child and it's not COWed because the mapping is
MAP_SHARED.

The child allocates private memory and initializes the private mutex in
that private mapping.

So now child does:

   pthread_mutex_lock(mut_s);

That's the mutex in the memory shared with the parent. After that the
childs robusts list head points to mut_s::robust_list.

Now it does:

   pthread_mutex_lock(mut_p);

after that the childs robust list head points to mut_p::robust_list and
mut_p::robust_list points to mut_s::robust_list.

So now the child unmaps the private memory and exists.

The kernel tries to walk the robust list pointer and faults when trying
to access mut_p. End of walk and mut_s stays locked.

So now think about the OOM case. The killed process has a shared mapping
with some other unrelated process (file, shmem) where mut_p sits.

It gets killed after:
		pthread_mutex_lock(mut_s);
		pthread_mutex_lock(mut_p);

So the OOM reaper rips the VMA which contains mut_p and therefore breaks
the chain which is necessary to reach mut_p.

See?

Thanks,

        tglx




  reply	other threads:[~2022-04-12 16:20 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
2022-04-12 16:20         ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
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=87h76yff3b.ffs@tglx \
    --to=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --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=npache@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=stable@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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).