Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] Remove XA_ZERO from error recovery of

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 15.08.25 21:10, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
> Before you read on, please take a moment to acknowledge that David
> Hildenbrand asked for this, so I'm blaming mostly him :)

:)

> 
> It is possible that the dup_mmap() call fails on allocating or setting
> up a vma after the maple tree of the oldmm is copied.  Today, that
> failure point is marked by inserting an XA_ZERO entry over the failure
> point so that the exact location does not need to be communicated
> through to exit_mmap().
> 
> However, a race exists in the tear down process because the dup_mmap()
> drops the mmap lock before exit_mmap() can remove the partially set up
> vma tree.  This means that other tasks may get to the mm tree and find
> the invalid vma pointer (since it's an XA_ZERO entry), even though the
> mm is marked as MMF_OOM_SKIP and MMF_UNSTABLE.
> 
> To remove the race fully, the tree must be cleaned up before dropping
> the lock.  This is accomplished by extracting the vma cleanup in
> exit_mmap() and changing the required functions to pass through the vma
> search limit.
> 
> This does run the risk of increasing the possibility of finding no vmas
> (which is already possible!) in code this isn't careful.

Right, it would also happen if __mt_dup() fails I guess.

> 
> The passing of so many limits and variables was such a mess when the
> dup_mmap() was introduced that it was avoided in favour of the XA_ZERO
> entry marker, but since the swap case was the second time we've hit
> cases of walking an almost-dead mm, here's the alternative to checking
> MMF_UNSTABLE before wandering into other mm structs.

Changes look fairly small and reasonable, so I really like this.

I agree with Jann that doing a partial teardown might be even better, 
but code-wise I suspect it might end up with a lot more churn and weird 
allocation-corner-cases to handle.

-- 
Cheers

David / dhildenb