Re: [PATCH v4 0/1] Use HMM for ODP v4

Jerome Glisse
2019-05-22T22:42:16Z

On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 07:39:06PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 06:04:20PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 05:12:47PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 01:48:52PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > >
> > > > static void put_per_mm(struct ib_umem_odp *umem_odp)
> > > > {
> > > > struct ib_ucontext_per_mm *per_mm = umem_odp->per_mm;
> > > > @@ -325,9 +283,10 @@ static void put_per_mm(struct ib_umem_odp *umem_odp)
> > > > up_write(&per_mm->umem_rwsem);
> > > >
> > > > WARN_ON(!RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&per_mm->umem_tree.rb_root));
> > > > - mmu_notifier_unregister_no_release(&per_mm->mn, per_mm->mm);
> > > > + hmm_mirror_unregister(&per_mm->mirror);
> > > > put_pid(per_mm->tgid);
> > > > - mmu_notifier_call_srcu(&per_mm->rcu, free_per_mm);
> > > > +
> > > > + kfree(per_mm);
> > >
> > > Notice that mmu_notifier only uses SRCU to fence in-progress ops
> > > callbacks, so I think hmm internally has the bug that this ODP
> > > approach prevents.
> > >
> > > hmm should follow the same pattern ODP has and 'kfree_srcu' the hmm
> > > struct, use container_of in the mmu_notifier callbacks, and use the
> > > otherwise vestigal kref_get_unless_zero() to bail:
> > >
> > > From 0cb536dc0150ba964a1d655151d7b7a84d0f915a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>
> > > Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 16:52:52 -0300
> > > Subject: [PATCH] hmm: Fix use after free with struct hmm in the mmu notifiers
> > >
> > > mmu_notifier_unregister_no_release() is not a fence and the mmu_notifier
> > > system will continue to reference hmm->mn until the srcu grace period
> > > expires.
> > >
> > > CPU0 CPU1
> > > __mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start()
> > > srcu_read_lock
> > > hlist_for_each ()
> > > // mn == hmm->mn
> > > hmm_mirror_unregister()
> > > hmm_put()
> > > hmm_free()
> > > mmu_notifier_unregister_no_release()
> > > hlist_del_init_rcu(hmm-mn->list)
> > > mn->ops->invalidate_range_start(mn, range);
> > > mm_get_hmm()
> > > mm->hmm = NULL;
> > > kfree(hmm)
> > > mutex_lock(&hmm->lock);
> > >
> > > Use SRCU to kfree the hmm memory so that the notifiers can rely on hmm
> > > existing. Get the now-safe hmm struct through container_of and directly
> > > check kref_get_unless_zero to lock it against free.
> >
> > It is already badly handled with BUG_ON()
>
> You can't crash the kernel because userspace forced a race, and no it
> isn't handled today because there is no RCU locking in mm_get_hmm nor
> is there a kfree_rcu for the struct hmm to make the
> kref_get_unless_zero work without use-after-free.
>
> > i just need to convert those to return and to use
> > mmu_notifier_call_srcu() to free hmm struct.
>
> Isn't that what this patch does?

Yes but other chunk just need to replace BUG_ON with return

>
> > The way race is avoided is because mm->hmm will either be NULL or
> > point to another hmm struct before an existing hmm is free.
>
> There is no locking on mm->hmm so it is useless to prevent races.

There is locking on mm->hmm

>
> > Also if range_start/range_end use kref_get_unless_zero() but right
> > now this is BUG_ON if it turn out to be NULL, it should just return
> > on NULL.
>
> Still needs rcu.
>
> Also the container_of is necessary to avoid some race where you could
> be doing:
>
> CPU0 CPU1 CPU2
> hlist_for_each ()
> mmu_notifier_unregister_no_release(hmm1)
> spin_lock(&mm->page_table_lock);
> mm->hmm = NULL
> spin_unlock(&mm->page_table_lock);
> hmm2 = hmm_get_or_create()
> mn == hmm1->mn
> mn->ops->invalidate_range_start(mn, range)
> mm_get_mm() == hmm2
> hist_for_each con't
> mn == hmm2->mn
> mn->ops->invalidate_range_start(mn, range)
> mm_get_mm() == hmm2
>
> Now we called the same notifier twice on hmm2. Ooops.
>
> There is no reason to risk this confusion just to avoid container_of.
>
> So we agree this patch is necessary? Can you test it an ack it please?

A slightly different patch than this one is necessary i will work on
it tomorrow.

Cheers,
Jérôme