From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Zi Yan <zi.yan@cs.rutgers.edu>,
Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@kernel.org>
Cc: <linux-mm@kvack.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] mm: Fix race between __split_huge_pmd_locked() and GUP-fast
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 21:41:30 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <17956e0f-1101-42d7-9cba-87e196312484@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240425170704.3379492-1-ryan.roberts@arm.com>
On 4/25/24 10:07 AM, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> __split_huge_pmd_locked() can be called for a present THP, devmap or
> (non-present) migration entry. It calls pmdp_invalidate()
> unconditionally on the pmdp and only determines if it is present or not
> based on the returned old pmd. This is a problem for the migration entry
> case because pmd_mkinvalid(), called by pmdp_invalidate() must only be
> called for a present pmd.
>
> On arm64 at least, pmd_mkinvalid() will mark the pmd such that any
> future call to pmd_present() will return true. And therefore any
> lockless pgtable walker could see the migration entry pmd in this state
> and start interpretting the fields as if it were present, leading to
> BadThings (TM). GUP-fast appears to be one such lockless pgtable walker.
> I suspect the same is possible on other architectures.
>
> Fix this by only calling pmdp_invalidate() for a present pmd. And for
Yes, this seems like a good design decision (after reading through the
discussion that you all had in the other threads).
> good measure let's add a warning to the generic implementation of
> pmdp_invalidate(). I've manually reviewed all other
> pmdp_invalidate[_ad]() call sites and believe all others to be
> conformant.
>
> This is a theoretical bug found during code review. I don't have any
> test case to trigger it in practice.
>
> Fixes: 84c3fc4e9c56 ("mm: thp: check pmd migration entry in common path")
> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
> ---
>
> Applies on top of v6.9-rc5. Passes all the mm selftests on arm64.
>
> Thanks,
> Ryan
>
>
> mm/huge_memory.c | 5 +++--
> mm/pgtable-generic.c | 2 ++
> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
> index 89f58c7603b2..80939ad00718 100644
> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
> @@ -2513,12 +2513,12 @@ static void __split_huge_pmd_locked(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
> * for this pmd), then we flush the SMP TLB and finally we write the
> * non-huge version of the pmd entry with pmd_populate.
> */
> - old_pmd = pmdp_invalidate(vma, haddr, pmd);
>
> - pmd_migration = is_pmd_migration_entry(old_pmd);
> + pmd_migration = is_pmd_migration_entry(*pmd);
> if (unlikely(pmd_migration)) {
> swp_entry_t entry;
>
> + old_pmd = *pmd;
> entry = pmd_to_swp_entry(old_pmd);
> page = pfn_swap_entry_to_page(entry);
> write = is_writable_migration_entry(entry);
> @@ -2529,6 +2529,7 @@ static void __split_huge_pmd_locked(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
> soft_dirty = pmd_swp_soft_dirty(old_pmd);
> uffd_wp = pmd_swp_uffd_wp(old_pmd);
> } else {
> + old_pmd = pmdp_invalidate(vma, haddr, pmd);
This looks good, except that now I am deeply confused about the pre-existing
logic. I thought that migration entries were a subset of swap entries,
but this code seems to be treating is_pmd_migration_entry() as a
synonym for "is a swap entry". Can you shed any light on this for me?
> page = pmd_page(old_pmd);
> folio = page_folio(page);
> if (pmd_dirty(old_pmd)) {
> diff --git a/mm/pgtable-generic.c b/mm/pgtable-generic.c
> index 4fcd959dcc4d..74e34ea90656 100644
> --- a/mm/pgtable-generic.c
> +++ b/mm/pgtable-generic.c
> @@ -198,6 +198,7 @@ pgtable_t pgtable_trans_huge_withdraw(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *pmdp)
> pmd_t pmdp_invalidate(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address,
> pmd_t *pmdp)
> {
> + VM_WARN_ON(!pmd_present(*pmdp));
> pmd_t old = pmdp_establish(vma, address, pmdp, pmd_mkinvalid(*pmdp));
> flush_pmd_tlb_range(vma, address, address + HPAGE_PMD_SIZE);
> return old;
> @@ -208,6 +209,7 @@ pmd_t pmdp_invalidate(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address,
> pmd_t pmdp_invalidate_ad(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address,
> pmd_t *pmdp)
> {
> + VM_WARN_ON(!pmd_present(*pmdp));
Should these be VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(), instead?
Also, this seems like a good place to put a little comment in, to mark the
new design constraint. Something like "Only present entries are allowed
to be invalidated", perhaps.
> return pmdp_invalidate(vma, address, pmdp);
> }
> #endif
> --
> 2.25.1
>
>
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-27 4:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-25 17:07 [PATCH v1] mm: Fix race between __split_huge_pmd_locked() and GUP-fast Ryan Roberts
2024-04-25 18:58 ` Zi Yan
2024-04-26 4:50 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-04-26 14:33 ` Zi Yan
2024-04-29 3:36 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-04-26 7:48 ` Ryan Roberts
2024-04-26 4:19 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-04-26 7:43 ` Ryan Roberts
2024-04-26 14:49 ` Zi Yan
2024-04-26 14:53 ` Zi Yan
2024-04-27 4:25 ` John Hubbard
2024-04-27 15:07 ` Zi Yan
2024-04-29 5:31 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-04-29 5:25 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-04-29 5:07 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-04-27 4:41 ` John Hubbard [this message]
2024-04-27 15:14 ` Zi Yan
2024-04-27 19:11 ` John Hubbard
2024-04-27 20:45 ` Zi Yan
2024-04-27 20:48 ` Zi Yan
2024-04-29 6:17 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-04-29 14:41 ` Zi Yan
2024-04-29 9:29 ` Ryan Roberts
2024-04-29 14:45 ` Zi Yan
2024-04-29 15:29 ` Zi Yan
2024-04-29 15:35 ` Ryan Roberts
2024-04-29 15:34 ` Ryan Roberts
2024-04-29 16:02 ` Zi Yan
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=17956e0f-1101-42d7-9cba-87e196312484@nvidia.com \
--to=jhubbard@nvidia.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=aneesh.kumar@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
--cc=zi.yan@cs.rutgers.edu \
/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.