linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	kernel test robot <yujie.liu@intel.com>,
	"Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@gmail.com>,
	<lkp@lists.01.org>, <lkp@intel.com>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [shmem] 7a7256d5f5: WARNING:possible_recursive_locking_detected
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 15:48:57 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y1Mh2S7fUGQ/iKFR@iweiny-desk3> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221021133041.5811e1fb291eb6aaf122a59c@linux-foundation.org>

On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 01:30:41PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 14:09:16 +0100 Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 12:10:17PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > > FYI, we noticed WARNING:possible_recursive_locking_detected due to commit (built with gcc-11):
> > > 
> > > commit: 7a7256d5f512b6c17957df7f59cf5e281b3ddba3 ("shmem: convert shmem_mfill_atomic_pte() to use a folio")
> > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
> > 
> > Ummm.  Looks to me like this now occurs because of this part of the
> > change:
> > 
> >                 if (!zeropage) {        /* COPY */
> > -                       page_kaddr = kmap_atomic(page);
> > +                       page_kaddr = kmap_local_folio(folio, 0);
> >                         ret = copy_from_user(page_kaddr,
> >                                              (const void __user *)src_addr,
> >                                              PAGE_SIZE);
> > -                       kunmap_atomic(page_kaddr);
> > +                       kunmap_local(page_kaddr);
> > 
> > Should I be using __copy_from_user_inatomic() here?

I would say not.  I'm curious why copy_from_user() was safe (at least did not
fail the checkers).  :-/

> 
> Caller __mcopy_atomic() is holding mmap_read_lock(dst_mm) and this
> copy_from_user() calls
> might_fault()->might_lock_read(current->mm->mmap_lock).
> 
> And I guess might_lock_read() gets upset because we're holding another
> mm's mmap_lock.  Which sounds OK to me, unless a concurrent
> mmap_write_lock() could jam things up.
> 
> But I cannot see why your patch would suddenly trigger this warning -
> kmap_local_folio() and kmap_atomic() are basically the same thing.

It is related to your patch but I think what you did made sense on the surface.

On the surface copy_from_user() should not require pagefaults to be disabled.
But that side affect of kmap_atomic() was being used here because it looks like
the code is designed to fallback if the fault was not allowed:[1]

mm/shmem.c
...
                        page_kaddr = kmap_local_folio(folio, 0);
                        ret = copy_from_user(page_kaddr,
                                             (const void __user *)src_addr,
                                             PAGE_SIZE);
                        kunmap_local(page_kaddr);

                        /* fallback to copy_from_user outside mmap_lock */
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                        if (unlikely(ret)) {
                                *pagep = &folio->page;
                                ret = -ENOENT;
                                /* don't free the page */
                                goto out_unacct_blocks;
                        }
...

So this is one of those rare places where the kmap_atomic() side effects were
being depended on...  :-(

[1] might_fault() does not actually mean the code completes the fault.

mm/memory.c
...
void __might_fault(const char *file, int line)
{
        if (pagefault_disabled())
                return;
...

> 
> I see that __mcopy_atomic() is using plain old kmap(), perhaps to work
> around this?  But that's 2015 code and I'm not sure we had such
> detailed lock checking in those days.

No kmap() can't work around this.  That works because the lock is released just
above that.

mm/userfaultfd.c
...
                        mmap_read_unlock(dst_mm);
                        BUG_ON(!page);

                        page_kaddr = kmap(page);
                        err = copy_from_user(page_kaddr,
                                             (const void __user *) src_addr,
                                             PAGE_SIZE);
                        kunmap(page);
...

So I think the correct solution is below because we want to prevent the page
fault.

Ira

diff --git a/mm/shmem.c b/mm/shmem.c
index 8280a5cb48df..6c8e99bf5983 100644
--- a/mm/shmem.c
+++ b/mm/shmem.c
@@ -2424,9 +2424,11 @@ int shmem_mfill_atomic_pte(struct mm_struct *dst_mm,

                if (!zeropage) {        /* COPY */
                        page_kaddr = kmap_local_folio(folio, 0);
+                       pagefault_disable()
                        ret = copy_from_user(page_kaddr,
                                             (const void __user *)src_addr,
                                             PAGE_SIZE);
+                       pagefault_enable()
                        kunmap_local(page_kaddr);

                        /* fallback to copy_from_user outside mmap_lock */



  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-10-21 22:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-10-21  4:10 [shmem] 7a7256d5f5: WARNING:possible_recursive_locking_detected kernel test robot
2022-10-21 13:09 ` Matthew Wilcox
2022-10-21 20:30   ` Andrew Morton
2022-10-21 22:36     ` Matthew Wilcox
2022-10-21 22:48     ` Ira Weiny [this message]
2022-10-22  0:00       ` Ira Weiny
2022-10-22  0:02         ` Randy Dunlap
2022-10-22  0:08           ` Ira Weiny
2022-10-22  0:17         ` Peter Xu

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=Y1Mh2S7fUGQ/iKFR@iweiny-desk3 \
    --to=ira.weiny@intel.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=fmdefrancesco@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=lkp@intel.com \
    --cc=lkp@lists.01.org \
    --cc=peterx@redhat.com \
    --cc=willy@infradead.org \
    --cc=yujie.liu@intel.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).