CVE-2024-43892
Shakeel Butt (1): memcg: protect concurrent access to mem_cgroup_idr
mm/memcontrol.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
From: Shakeel Butt shakeel.butt@linux.dev
stable inclusion from stable-v6.6.46 commit 37a060b64ae83b76600d187d76591ce488ab836b category: bugfix bugzilla: https://gitee.com/src-openeuler/kernel/issues/IAMMB5 CVE: CVE-2024-43892
Reference: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?id=...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
commit 9972605a238339b85bd16b084eed5f18414d22db upstream.
Commit 73f576c04b94 ("mm: memcontrol: fix cgroup creation failure after many small jobs") decoupled the memcg IDs from the CSS ID space to fix the cgroup creation failures. It introduced IDR to maintain the memcg ID space. The IDR depends on external synchronization mechanisms for modifications. For the mem_cgroup_idr, the idr_alloc() and idr_replace() happen within css callback and thus are protected through cgroup_mutex from concurrent modifications. However idr_remove() for mem_cgroup_idr was not protected against concurrency and can be run concurrently for different memcgs when they hit their refcnt to zero. Fix that.
We have been seeing list_lru based kernel crashes at a low frequency in our fleet for a long time. These crashes were in different part of list_lru code including list_lru_add(), list_lru_del() and reparenting code. Upon further inspection, it looked like for a given object (dentry and inode), the super_block's list_lru didn't have list_lru_one for the memcg of that object. The initial suspicions were either the object is not allocated through kmem_cache_alloc_lru() or somehow memcg_list_lru_alloc() failed to allocate list_lru_one() for a memcg but returned success. No evidence were found for these cases.
Looking more deeply, we started seeing situations where valid memcg's id is not present in mem_cgroup_idr and in some cases multiple valid memcgs have same id and mem_cgroup_idr is pointing to one of them. So, the most reasonable explanation is that these situations can happen due to race between multiple idr_remove() calls or race between idr_alloc()/idr_replace() and idr_remove(). These races are causing multiple memcgs to acquire the same ID and then offlining of one of them would cleanup list_lrus on the system for all of them. Later access from other memcgs to the list_lru cause crashes due to missing list_lru_one.
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240802235822.1830976-1-shakeel.butt@linux.dev Fixes: 73f576c04b94 ("mm: memcontrol: fix cgroup creation failure after many small jobs") Signed-off-by: Shakeel Butt shakeel.butt@linux.dev Acked-by: Muchun Song muchun.song@linux.dev Reviewed-by: Roman Gushchin roman.gushchin@linux.dev Acked-by: Johannes Weiner hannes@cmpxchg.org Cc: Michal Hocko mhocko@suse.com Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton akpm@linux-foundation.org Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
Conflicts: mm/memcontrol.c [1.hulk feature commit a095a940f784 ("memcg: add restrict to swap to cgroup1") leads to miss match context; 2. idr_replace is in the mem_cgroup_alloc function] Signed-off-by: Chen Ridong chenridong@huawei.com --- mm/memcontrol.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c index 3c979aa70ff6..aefaa33147b1 100644 --- a/mm/memcontrol.c +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c @@ -6302,11 +6302,28 @@ static struct cftype mem_cgroup_legacy_files[] = { */
static DEFINE_IDR(mem_cgroup_idr); +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(memcg_idr_lock); + +static int mem_cgroup_alloc_id(void) +{ + int ret; + + idr_preload(GFP_KERNEL); + spin_lock(&memcg_idr_lock); + ret = idr_alloc(&mem_cgroup_idr, NULL, 1, MEM_CGROUP_ID_MAX + 1, + GFP_NOWAIT); + spin_unlock(&memcg_idr_lock); + idr_preload_end(); + return ret; +}
static void mem_cgroup_id_remove(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) { if (memcg->id.id > 0) { + spin_lock(&memcg_idr_lock); idr_remove(&mem_cgroup_idr, memcg->id.id); + spin_unlock(&memcg_idr_lock); + memcg->id.id = 0; } } @@ -6414,8 +6431,7 @@ static struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_alloc(void) if (memcg_alloc_swap_device(memcg)) goto fail;
- memcg->id.id = idr_alloc(&mem_cgroup_idr, NULL, - 1, MEM_CGROUP_ID_MAX + 1, GFP_KERNEL); + memcg->id.id = mem_cgroup_alloc_id(); if (memcg->id.id < 0) { error = memcg->id.id; goto fail; @@ -6456,7 +6472,10 @@ static struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_alloc(void) INIT_LIST_HEAD(&memcg->deferred_split_queue.split_queue); memcg->deferred_split_queue.split_queue_len = 0; #endif + spin_lock(&memcg_idr_lock); idr_replace(&mem_cgroup_idr, memcg, memcg->id.id); + spin_unlock(&memcg_idr_lock); + return memcg; fail: mem_cgroup_id_remove(memcg);
反馈: 您发送到kernel@openeuler.org的补丁/补丁集,转换为PR失败! 邮件列表地址:https://mailweb.openeuler.org/hyperkitty/list/kernel@openeuler.org/message/X... 失败原因:应用补丁/补丁集失败,Patch failed at 0001 memcg: protect concurrent access to mem_cgroup_idr 建议解决方法:请查看失败原因, 确认补丁是否可以应用在当前期望分支的最新代码上
FeedBack: The patch(es) which you have sent to kernel@openeuler.org has been converted to PR failed! Mailing list address: https://mailweb.openeuler.org/hyperkitty/list/kernel@openeuler.org/message/X... Failed Reason: apply patch(es) failed, Patch failed at 0001 memcg: protect concurrent access to mem_cgroup_idr Suggest Solution: please checkout if the failed patch(es) can work on the newest codes in expected branch