Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 1 Feb 2018 20:22:04 +0000
From:   Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
CC:     "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <kernel-team@fb.com>,
        <edumazet@google.com>, <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, <tj@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: memcontrol: charge allocated memory after
 mem_cgroup_sk_alloc()
Message-ID: <20180201202158.GA11477@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
References: <20180125001911.15597-1-guro@fb.com>
 <20180125.120302.1117695034222616751.davem@davemloft.net>
 <20180131215401.GA8956@castle>
 <20180201.101655.1316424669256047119.davem@davemloft.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180201.101655.1316424669256047119.davem@davemloft.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: fb.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Feb 2018 20:22:15.9762 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 0fb296d5-4bb0-426e-d45a-08d569b18031
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 8ae927fe-1255-47a7-a2af-5f3a069daaa2
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SN2PR15MB1087
X-OriginatorOrg: fb.com
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2018-02-01_06:,,
 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Reason: safe
X-FB-Internal: Safe
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 10:16:55AM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
> Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 21:54:08 +0000
> 
> > So I really start thinking that reverting 9f1c2674b328
> > ("net: memcontrol: defer call to mem_cgroup_sk_alloc()")
> > and fixing the original issue differently might be easier
> > and a proper way to go. Does it makes sense?
> 
> You'll need to work that out with Eric Dumazet who added the
> change in question which you think we should revert.

Eric,

can you, please, provide some details about the use-after-free problem
that you've fixed with commit 9f1c2674b328 ("net: memcontrol: defer call
to mem_cgroup_sk_alloc()" ? Do you know how to reproduce it?

Deferring mem_cgroup_sk_alloc() breaks socket memory accounting
and makes it much more fragile in general. So, I wonder, if there are
solutions for the use-after-free problem.

Thank you!

Roman