Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A4B5C433F5 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 09:24:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S240609AbhLFJ1s (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Dec 2021 04:27:48 -0500 Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de ([195.135.220.28]:53152 "EHLO smtp-out1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S240600AbhLFJ1r (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Dec 2021 04:27:47 -0500 Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D0AE21954; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 09:24:18 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1638782658; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=7Vco9glFS3Y9+9ZSujsdpiQ0a6mrpn0Ss9aIC/hu5Ks=; b=nr5KoukFy51O3QE1ZPAsEgpN+QXM49LBB8HAFnsb3VMVJzqqOT9sqfFulJ39DJvsYxiMz7 9EMibbwf/8LjLzeOO1hVuD4hM7YP51TUgDpOGzmg1I2y2aXhYASsM70+YQvzX9bEhV0A4i nNyZumEldFyk7BFwDcvdP98PWJZdFaA= Received: from suse.cz (unknown [10.163.30.174]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC778A3B88; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 09:24:17 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 10:24:14 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Nico Pache Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, shakeelb@google.com, ktkhai@virtuozzo.com, shy828301@gmail.com, guro@fb.com, vbabka@suse.cz, vdavydov.dev@gmail.com, raquini@redhat.com, David Hildenbrand Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] mm/vmscan.c: Prevent allocating shrinker_info on offlined nodes Message-ID: References: <20211206033338.743270-1-npache@redhat.com> <20211206033338.743270-3-npache@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org [Cc David. I have only now noticed he has replied to this thread already pointing out the offline->online case] On Mon 06-12-21 10:23:00, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Sun 05-12-21 22:33:38, Nico Pache wrote: > > We have run into a panic caused by a shrinker allocation being attempted > > on an offlined node. > > > > Our crash analysis has determined that the issue originates from trying > > to allocate pages on an offlined node in expand_one_shrinker_info. This > > function makes the incorrect assumption that we can allocate on any node. > > To correct this we make sure we only itterate over online nodes. > > > > This assumption can lead to an incorrect address being assigned to ac->zonelist > > in the following callchain: > > __alloc_pages > > -> prepare_alloc_pages > > -> node_zonelist > > > > static inline struct zonelist *node_zonelist(int nid, gfp_t flags) > > { > > return NODE_DATA(nid)->node_zonelists + gfp_zonelist(flags); > > } > > if the node is not online the return of node_zonelist will evaluate to a > > invalid pointer of 0x00000 + offset_of(node_zonelists) + (1|0) > > > > This address is then dereferenced further down the callchain in: > > prepare_alloc_pages > > -> first_zones_zonelist > > -> next_zones_zonelist > > -> zonelist_zone_idx > > > > static inline int zonelist_zone_idx(struct zoneref *zoneref) > > { > > return zoneref->zone_idx; > > } > > > > Leading the system to panic. > > Thanks for the analysis! Please also add an oops report so that this is > easier to search for. It would be also interesting to see specifics > about the issue. Why was the specific node !online in the first place? > What architecture was this on? > > > We also correct this behavior in alloc_shrinker_info, free_shrinker_info, > > and reparent_shrinker_deferred. > > > > Fixes: 2bfd36374edd ("mm: vmscan: consolidate shrinker_maps handling code") > > Fixes: 0a4465d34028 ("mm, memcg: assign memcg-aware shrinkers bitmap to memcg") > > Normally I would split the fix as it is fixing two issues one introduced > in 4.19 the other in 5.13. > > > Signed-off-by: Nico Pache > > --- > > mm/vmscan.c | 8 ++++---- > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c > > index fb9584641ac7..731564b61e3f 100644 > > --- a/mm/vmscan.c > > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c > > @@ -221,7 +221,7 @@ static int expand_one_shrinker_info(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, > > int nid; > > int size = map_size + defer_size; > > > > - for_each_node(nid) { > > + for_each_online_node(nid) { > > pn = memcg->nodeinfo[nid]; > > old = shrinker_info_protected(memcg, nid); > > /* Not yet online memcg */ > > @@ -256,7 +256,7 @@ void free_shrinker_info(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) > > struct shrinker_info *info; > > int nid; > > > > - for_each_node(nid) { > > + for_each_online_node(nid) { > > pn = memcg->nodeinfo[nid]; > > info = rcu_dereference_protected(pn->shrinker_info, true); > > kvfree(info); > > @@ -274,7 +274,7 @@ int alloc_shrinker_info(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) > > map_size = shrinker_map_size(shrinker_nr_max); > > defer_size = shrinker_defer_size(shrinker_nr_max); > > size = map_size + defer_size; > > - for_each_node(nid) { > > + for_each_online_node(nid) { > > info = kvzalloc_node(sizeof(*info) + size, GFP_KERNEL, nid); > > if (!info) { > > free_shrinker_info(memcg); > > @@ -417,7 +417,7 @@ void reparent_shrinker_deferred(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) > > > > /* Prevent from concurrent shrinker_info expand */ > > down_read(&shrinker_rwsem); > > - for_each_node(nid) { > > + for_each_online_node(nid) { > > child_info = shrinker_info_protected(memcg, nid); > > parent_info = shrinker_info_protected(parent, nid); > > for (i = 0; i < shrinker_nr_max; i++) { > > -- > > 2.33.1 > > This doesn't seen complete. Slab shrinkers are used in the reclaim > context. Previously offline nodes could be onlined later and this would > lead to NULL ptr because there is no hook to allocate new shrinker > infos. This would be also really impractical because this would have to > update all existing memcgs... > > To be completely honest I am not really sure this is a practical problem > because some architectures allocate (aka make online) all possible nodes > reported by the platform. There are major inconsistencies there. Maybe > that should be unified, so that problems like this one do not really > have to add a complexity to the code. > > -- > Michal Hocko > SUSE Labs -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs