Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/sgx: Maintain encl->refcount for each encl->mm_list entry

Jarkko Sakkinen
2021-02-07T21:30:52Z

On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 11:36:57AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 2/5/21 10:28 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > This has been shown in tests:
> >
> > [ +0.000008] WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 7620 at kernel/rcu/srcutree.c:374 cleanup_srcu_struct+0xed/0x100
> >
> > There are two functions that drain encl->mm_list:
> >
> > - sgx_release() (i.e. VFS release) removes the remaining mm_list entries.
> > - sgx_mmu_notifier_release() removes mm_list entry for the registered
> > process, if it still exists.
>
> Jarkko, I like your approach. This actually has the potential to be a
> lot more understandable than the fix we settled on before.

Yeah, it's more like by-the-book use of refcount, each processs gets
a reference. This way things should be always serialized correctly.

> But I think the explanation needs some tweaking, and I think I can take
> it a step further to make it even more straightforward. The issue here
> isn't *really* mm_list, it's this:
>
> encl_mm->encl = encl;

Agreed.

This was also in center of thinking when I did this new patch.

> That literally establishes a encl_mm to encl reference and needs a
> reference count. That reference remains until 'encl_mm' is freed. I
> don't think mm_list needs to even be taken into account.
>
> The most straightforward way to fix this is to take a refcount at
> "encl_mm->encl = encl" and release it at kfree(encl_mm). That makes a
> *lot* of logical sense to me, and it's also trivial to audit.
>
> Totally untested patch attached (adapted directly from yours).

I tested this version, and it also seems to work. Boris, can you
pick this refined version from Dave's attachment or do you prefer
that I do a re-send?

/Jarkko