Re: [PATCH 22/23] userfaultfd: avoid mmap_sem read recursion in mcopy_atomic

[Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>]

On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 01:18:22PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 14 May 2015 19:31:19 +0200 Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > If the rwsem starves writers it wasn't strictly a bug but lockdep
> > doesn't like it and this avoids depending on lowlevel implementation
> > details of the lock.
> > 
> > ...
> >
> > @@ -229,13 +246,33 @@ static __always_inline ssize_t __mcopy_atomic(struct mm_struct *dst_mm,
> >  
> >  		if (!zeropage)
> >  			err = mcopy_atomic_pte(dst_mm, dst_pmd, dst_vma,
> > -					       dst_addr, src_addr);
> > +					       dst_addr, src_addr, &page);
> >  		else
> >  			err = mfill_zeropage_pte(dst_mm, dst_pmd, dst_vma,
> >  						 dst_addr);
> >  
> >  		cond_resched();
> >  
> > +		if (unlikely(err == -EFAULT)) {
> > +			void *page_kaddr;
> > +
> > +			BUILD_BUG_ON(zeropage);
> 
> I'm not sure what this is trying to do.  BUILD_BUG_ON(local_variable)?
> 
> It goes bang in my build.  I'll just delete it.

Yes, it has to be a false positive failure, so it's fine to drop
it. My gcc 4.8.4 can go inside the static called function and see that
only mcopy_atomic_pte can return -EFAULT. RHEL7 (4.8.3) gcc didn't
complain either. Perhaps to make the BUILD_BUG_ON work with older gcc,
it requrires a local variable set explicitly in the callee, but it's
not worth it.

It would be bad if we end up in the -EFAULT path in the zeropage case
(if somebody later adds an apparently innocent -EFAULT retval and
unexpectedly ends up in the mcopy_atomic_pte retry logic), but it's
not important, the caller should be reviewed before improvising new
retvals anyway.

The retry loop addition and the BUILD_BUG_ON is all about the
copy_from_user run while we already hold the mmap_sem (potentially of
a different process in the non-cooperative case but it's a problem if
it's the current task mmap_sem in case the rwlock implementation
changes to avoid write starvation and becomes non-reentrant). lockdep
definitely complains (even if I think in practice it'd be safe to
read-lock recurse, we just got lockdep complains never deadlocks in
fact). I didn't want to call gup_fast as copy_from_user is faster and
I got an usable user mapping with likely TLB entry hot too. The
lockdep warnings we hit I think were associated with NUMA hinting
faults or something infrequent like that, the fast path doesn't need
to retry.

Thanks,
Andrea

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>