From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Cc: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>,
Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@nvidia.com>, <Felix.Kuehling@amd.com>,
<linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
<dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
<amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 hmm 01/11] mm/hmm: fix use after free with struct hmm in the mmu notifiers
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2019 18:13:46 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1b3916b8-fcf0-3a11-1cd8-223fc8e60ac1@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190607123432.GB14802@ziepe.ca>
On 6/7/19 5:34 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 07:29:08PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
>> On 6/6/19 11:44 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>
>> ...
>>> diff --git a/mm/hmm.c b/mm/hmm.c
>>> index 8e7403f081f44a..547002f56a163d 100644
>>> +++ b/mm/hmm.c
>> ...
>>> @@ -125,7 +130,7 @@ static void hmm_free(struct kref *kref)
>>> mm->hmm = NULL;
>>> spin_unlock(&mm->page_table_lock);
>>>
>>> - kfree(hmm);
>>> + mmu_notifier_call_srcu(&hmm->rcu, hmm_free_rcu);
>>
>>
>> It occurred to me to wonder if it is best to use the MMU notifier's
>> instance of srcu, instead of creating a separate instance for HMM.
>
> It *has* to be the MMU notifier SRCU because we are synchornizing
> against the read side of that SRU inside the mmu notifier code, ie:
>
> int __mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(struct mmu_notifier_range *range)
> id = srcu_read_lock(&srcu);
> hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(mn, &range->mm->mmu_notifier_mm->list, hlist) {
> if (mn->ops->invalidate_range_start) {
> ^^^^^
>
> Here 'mn' is really hmm (hmm = container_of(mn, struct hmm,
> mmu_notifier)), so we must protect the memory against free for the mmu
> notifier core.
>
> Thus we have no choice but to use its SRCU.
Ah right. It's embarassingly obvious when you say it out loud. :)
Thanks for explaining.
>
> CH also pointed out a more elegant solution, which is to get the write
> side of the mmap_sem during hmm_mirror_unregister - no notifier
> callback can be running in this case. Then we delete the kref, srcu
> and so forth.
>
> This is much clearer/saner/better, but.. requries the callers of
> hmm_mirror_unregister to be safe to get the mmap_sem write side.
>
> I think this is true, so maybe this patch should be switched, what do
> you think?
OK, your follow-up notes that we'll leave it as is, got it.
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-08 1:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 79+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-06 18:44 [PATCH v2 hmm 00/11] Various revisions from a locking/code review Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-06 18:44 ` [PATCH v2 hmm 01/11] mm/hmm: fix use after free with struct hmm in the mmu notifiers Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-07 2:29 ` John Hubbard
2019-06-07 12:34 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-07 13:42 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-08 1:13 ` John Hubbard [this message]
2019-06-08 1:37 ` John Hubbard
2019-06-07 18:12 ` Ralph Campbell
2019-06-08 8:49 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-06-08 11:33 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-06 18:44 ` [PATCH v2 hmm 02/11] mm/hmm: Use hmm_mirror not mm as an argument for hmm_range_register Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-07 2:36 ` John Hubbard
2019-06-07 18:24 ` Ralph Campbell
2019-06-07 22:39 ` Ralph Campbell
2019-06-10 13:09 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-07 22:33 ` Ira Weiny
2019-06-08 8:54 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-06-11 19:44 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-12 7:12 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-06-12 11:41 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-12 12:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-06-06 18:44 ` [PATCH v2 hmm 03/11] mm/hmm: Hold a mmgrab from hmm to mm Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-07 2:44 ` John Hubbard
2019-06-07 12:36 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-07 18:41 ` Ralph Campbell
2019-06-07 18:51 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-07 22:38 ` Ira Weiny
2019-06-06 18:44 ` [PATCH v2 hmm 04/11] mm/hmm: Simplify hmm_get_or_create and make it reliable Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-07 2:54 ` John Hubbard
2019-06-07 18:52 ` Ralph Campbell
2019-06-07 22:44 ` Ira Weiny
2019-06-06 18:44 ` [PATCH v2 hmm 05/11] mm/hmm: Remove duplicate condition test before wait_event_timeout Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-07 3:06 ` John Hubbard
2019-06-07 12:47 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-07 13:31 ` [PATCH v3 " Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-07 22:55 ` Ira Weiny
2019-06-08 1:32 ` John Hubbard
2019-06-07 19:01 ` [PATCH v2 " Ralph Campbell
2019-06-07 19:13 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-07 20:21 ` Ralph Campbell
2019-06-07 20:44 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-07 22:13 ` Ralph Campbell
2019-06-08 1:47 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-06 18:44 ` [PATCH v2 hmm 06/11] mm/hmm: Hold on to the mmget for the lifetime of the range Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-07 3:15 ` John Hubbard
2019-06-07 20:29 ` Ralph Campbell
2019-06-06 18:44 ` [PATCH v2 hmm 07/11] mm/hmm: Use lockdep instead of comments Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-07 3:19 ` John Hubbard
2019-06-07 20:31 ` Ralph Campbell
2019-06-07 22:16 ` Souptick Joarder
2019-06-06 18:44 ` [PATCH v2 hmm 08/11] mm/hmm: Remove racy protection against double-unregistration Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-07 3:29 ` John Hubbard
2019-06-07 13:57 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-07 20:33 ` Ralph Campbell
2019-06-06 18:44 ` [PATCH v2 hmm 09/11] mm/hmm: Poison hmm_range during unregister Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-07 3:37 ` John Hubbard
2019-06-07 14:03 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-07 20:46 ` Ralph Campbell
2019-06-07 20:49 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-07 23:01 ` Ira Weiny
2019-06-06 18:44 ` [PATCH v2 hmm 10/11] mm/hmm: Do not use list*_rcu() for hmm->ranges Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-07 3:40 ` John Hubbard
2019-06-07 20:49 ` Ralph Campbell
2019-06-07 22:11 ` Souptick Joarder
2019-06-07 23:02 ` Ira Weiny
2019-06-06 18:44 ` [PATCH v2 hmm 11/11] mm/hmm: Remove confusing comment and logic from hmm_release Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-07 3:47 ` John Hubbard
2019-06-07 12:58 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-07 21:37 ` Ralph Campbell
2019-06-08 2:12 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-10 16:02 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-10 22:03 ` Ralph Campbell
2019-06-07 16:05 ` [PATCH v2 12/11] mm/hmm: Fix error flows in hmm_invalidate_range_start Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-07 23:52 ` Ralph Campbell
2019-06-08 1:35 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-11 19:48 ` [PATCH v2 hmm 00/11] Various revisions from a locking/code review Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-12 17:54 ` Kuehling, Felix
2019-06-12 21:49 ` Yang, Philip
2019-06-13 17:50 ` Jason Gunthorpe
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=1b3916b8-fcf0-3a11-1cd8-223fc8e60ac1@nvidia.com \
--to=jhubbard@nvidia.com \
--cc=Felix.Kuehling@amd.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
--cc=jglisse@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rcampbell@nvidia.com \
/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 NNTP newsgroup(s).