From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.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 09:49:53 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <39d0236c-4297-4001-bc7e-f516bc674f7b@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240425170704.3379492-1-ryan.roberts@arm.com>
On 4/25/24 22:37, 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.
pmdp_invalidate() must be called only for present PMD - is this expected
by core MM ? Does this cause any problem otherwise ?
>
> On arm64 at least, pmd_mkinvalid() will mark the pmd such that any
> future call to pmd_present() will return true. And therefore any
IIRC the following semantics needs to be followed as expected by core MM.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| PMD states | pmd_present | pmd_trans_huge |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Mapped | Yes | Yes |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Splitting | Yes | Yes |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Migration/Swap | No | No |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Could you please explain how bad things might happen ?
> I suspect the same is possible on other architectures.
>
> Fix this by only calling pmdp_invalidate() for a present pmd. And for
> 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);
> 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));
> return pmdp_invalidate(vma, address, pmdp);
> }
> #endif
> --
> 2.25.1
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-26 4:20 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 [this message]
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
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=39d0236c-4297-4001-bc7e-f516bc674f7b@arm.com \
--to=anshuman.khandual@arm.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 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 read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).