Re: [PATCH v9 07/17] mm: allow vma_start_read_locked/vma_start_read_locked_nested to fail

Suren Baghdasaryan
2025-01-13T17:53:13Z

On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 7:25 AM Lorenzo Stoakes
<lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 08:25:54PM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > With upcoming replacement of vm_lock with vm_refcnt, we need to handle a
> > possibility of vma_start_read_locked/vma_start_read_locked_nested failing
> > due to refcount overflow. Prepare for such possibility by changing these
> > APIs and adjusting their users.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
> > Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
> > Cc: Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com>
> > ---
> > include/linux/mm.h | 6 ++++--
> > mm/userfaultfd.c | 18 +++++++++++++-----
> > 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
> > index 2f805f1a0176..cbb4e3dbbaed 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/mm.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/mm.h
> > @@ -747,10 +747,11 @@ static inline bool vma_start_read(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > * not be used in such cases because it might fail due to mm_lock_seq overflow.
> > * This functionality is used to obtain vma read lock and drop the mmap read lock.
> > */
> > -static inline void vma_start_read_locked_nested(struct vm_area_struct *vma, int subclass)
> > +static inline bool vma_start_read_locked_nested(struct vm_area_struct *vma, int subclass)
> > {
> > mmap_assert_locked(vma->vm_mm);
> > down_read_nested(&vma->vm_lock.lock, subclass);
> > + return true;
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -759,10 +760,11 @@ static inline void vma_start_read_locked_nested(struct vm_area_struct *vma, int
> > * not be used in such cases because it might fail due to mm_lock_seq overflow.
> > * This functionality is used to obtain vma read lock and drop the mmap read lock.
> > */
> > -static inline void vma_start_read_locked(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > +static inline bool vma_start_read_locked(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > {
> > mmap_assert_locked(vma->vm_mm);
> > down_read(&vma->vm_lock.lock);
> > + return true;
> > }
> >
> > static inline void vma_end_read(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > diff --git a/mm/userfaultfd.c b/mm/userfaultfd.c
> > index 4527c385935b..411a663932c4 100644
> > --- a/mm/userfaultfd.c
> > +++ b/mm/userfaultfd.c
> > @@ -85,7 +85,8 @@ static struct vm_area_struct *uffd_lock_vma(struct mm_struct *mm,
> > mmap_read_lock(mm);
> > vma = find_vma_and_prepare_anon(mm, address);
> > if (!IS_ERR(vma))
> > - vma_start_read_locked(vma);
> > + if (!vma_start_read_locked(vma))
> > + vma = ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN);
>
> Nit but this kind of reads a bit weirdly now:
>
> if (!IS_ERR(vma))
> if (!vma_start_read_locked(vma))
> vma = ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN);
>
> Wouldn't this be nicer as:
>
> if (!IS_ERR(vma) && !vma_start_read_locked(vma))
> vma = ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN);
>
> On the other hand, this embeds an action in an expression, but then it sort of
> still looks weird.
>
> if (!IS_ERR(vma)) {
> bool ok = vma_start_read_locked(vma);
>
> if (!ok)
> vma = ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN);
> }
>
> This makes me wonder, now yes, we are truly bikeshedding, sorry, but maybe we
> could just have vma_start_read_locked return a VMA pointer that could be an
> error?
>
> Then this becomes:
>
> if (!IS_ERR(vma))
> vma = vma_start_read_locked(vma);

No, I think it would be wrong for vma_start_read_locked() to always
return EAGAIN when it can't lock the vma. The error code here is
context-dependent, so while EAGAIN is the right thing here, it might
not work for other future users.

>
> >
> > mmap_read_unlock(mm);
> > return vma;
> > @@ -1483,10 +1484,17 @@ static int uffd_move_lock(struct mm_struct *mm,
> > mmap_read_lock(mm);
> > err = find_vmas_mm_locked(mm, dst_start, src_start, dst_vmap, src_vmap);
> > if (!err) {
> > - vma_start_read_locked(*dst_vmap);
> > - if (*dst_vmap != *src_vmap)
> > - vma_start_read_locked_nested(*src_vmap,
> > - SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
> > + if (vma_start_read_locked(*dst_vmap)) {
> > + if (*dst_vmap != *src_vmap) {
> > + if (!vma_start_read_locked_nested(*src_vmap,
> > + SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING)) {
> > + vma_end_read(*dst_vmap);
>
> Hmm, why do we end read if the lock failed here but not above?

We have successfully done vma_start_read_locked(dst_vmap) (we locked
dest vma) but we failed to do vma_start_read_locked_nested(src_vmap)
(we could not lock src vma). So we should undo the dest vma locking.
Does that clarify the logic?

>
> > + err = -EAGAIN;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + } else {
> > + err = -EAGAIN;
> > + }
> > }
>
> This whole block is really ugly now, this really needs refactoring.
>
> How about (on assumption the vma_end_read() is correct):
>
>
> err = find_vmas_mm_locked(mm, dst_start, src_start, dst_vmap, src_vmap);
> if (err)
> goto out;
>
> if (!vma_start_read_locked(*dst_vmap)) {
> err = -EAGAIN;
> goto out;
> }
>
> /* Nothing further to do. */
> if (*dst_vmap == *src_vmap)
> goto out;
>
> if (!vma_start_read_locked_nested(*src_vmap,
> SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING)) {
> vma_end_read(*dst_vmap);
> err = -EAGAIN;
> }
>
> out:
> mmap_read_unlock(mm);
> return err;
> }

Ok, that looks good to me. Will change this way.
Thanks!

>
> > mmap_read_unlock(mm);
> > return err;
> > --
> > 2.47.1.613.gc27f4b7a9f-goog
> >