From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: christoffer.dall@linaro.org (Christoffer Dall) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 10:02:20 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 0/3] Simplify set_huge_pte_at, pte_same for LPAE In-Reply-To: <1384882529-28104-1-git-send-email-steve.capper@linaro.org> References: <1384882529-28104-1-git-send-email-steve.capper@linaro.org> Message-ID: <20131119180220.GE9314@cbox> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 05:35:26PM +0000, Steve Capper wrote: > Hello, > The following patch series is my attempt at fixing a rather nasty bug > which became visible in 3.12-rc1 when running the libhugetlbfs test > suite. (This problem only just came to my attention yesterday). > > For LPAE, set_huge_pte_at calls set_pte_at which then calls > set_pte_ext, which in turn is wired up to call cpu_v7_set_pte_ext, > which is defined in proc-v7-3level.S. > > For huge pages, given newprot a pgprot_t value for a shared writable > VMA, and ptep a pointer to a pte belonging to this VMA; the following > behaviour is assumed by core code: > hugetlb_change_protection(vma, address, end, newprot); > ... > > huge_pte_write(huge_ptep_get(ptep)); /* should be true! */ > > Unfortunately, cpu_v7_set_pte_ext will change the bit layout of the > resultant pte, and will set the read only bit if the dirty bit is not > also enabled. > > If one were to allocate a read only shared huge page, then fault it in, > and then mprotect it to be writeable. A subsequent write to that huge > page will result in a spurious call to hugetlb_cow, which causes > corruption. This call is optimised away prior to: > 37a2140 mm, hugetlb: do not use a page in page cache for cow > optimization > > If one runs the libhugetlbfs test suite on v3.12-rc1 upwards, then the > mprotect test will cause the afformentioned corruption and before the > set of tests completes, the system will be left in an unresponsive > state. (calls to fork fail with -ENOMEM). > > This was an absolute pig to debug and, as this is the second time I've > ran into issues caused by ptes being modified in transit, I've opted to > re-implement set_huge_pte_at such that it just dereferences the pte. > (in a similar manner as arm64). This has also allowed me to revert the > pte_same logic change (that removed the NG bit from comparison), by > also setting the NG bit for all new huge ptes. > For what it's worth, I spend weeks on the infamous KVM 'voodoo bug' which was also related to the side effect of setting bits in set_pte_at, and I remember then thinking that callers should decide which bits they want set in their page tables and a function to set a pte should set a pte, not or random bits on there. But I don't know the full history or rationale behind having this side effect, but I would certainly welcome a change to move setting those bits higher in the stack, especially because tracking it down into the non-trivial assembly code is quite tedious. -Christoffer