public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, luto@amacapital.net,
	axboe@kernel.dk, keescook@chromium.org,
	torvalds@linux-foundation.org, jannh@google.com, will@kernel.org,
	hch@lst.de, npiggin@gmail.com, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm: Fix kthread_use_mm() vs TLB invalidate
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 10:35:33 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200722083533.GK10769@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200721140623.4e8ecc6ef5d5ff42115d68fc@linux-foundation.org>

On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 02:06:23PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 17:41:06 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > For SMP systems using IPI based TLB invalidation, looking at
> > current->active_mm is entirely reasonable. This then presents the
> > following race condition:
> > 
> > 
> >   CPU0			CPU1
> > 
> >   flush_tlb_mm(mm)	use_mm(mm)
> >     <send-IPI>
> > 			  tsk->active_mm = mm;
> > 			  <IPI>
> > 			    if (tsk->active_mm == mm)
> > 			      // flush TLBs
> > 			  </IPI>
> > 			  switch_mm(old_mm,mm,tsk);
> > 
> > 
> > Where it is possible the IPI flushed the TLBs for @old_mm, not @mm,
> > because the IPI lands before we actually switched.
> > 
> > Avoid this by disabling IRQs across changing ->active_mm and
> > switch_mm().
> > 
> > [ There are all sorts of reasons this might be harmless for various
> > architecture specific reasons, but best not leave the door open at
> > all. ]
> 
> Can we give the -stable maintainers (and others) more explanation of
> why they might choose to merge this?

Like so then?

---
Subject: mm: Fix kthread_use_mm() vs TLB invalidate
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 10:25:19 +0100

For SMP systems using IPI based TLB invalidation, looking at
current->active_mm is entirely reasonable. This then presents the
following race condition:


  CPU0			CPU1

  flush_tlb_mm(mm)	use_mm(mm)
    <send-IPI>
			  tsk->active_mm = mm;
			  <IPI>
			    if (tsk->active_mm == mm)
			      // flush TLBs
			  </IPI>
			  switch_mm(old_mm,mm,tsk);


Where it is possible the IPI flushed the TLBs for @old_mm, not @mm,
because the IPI lands before we actually switched.

Avoid this by disabling IRQs across changing ->active_mm and
switch_mm().

Of the (SMP) architectures that have IPI based TLB invalidate:

  Alpha    - checks active_mm
  ARC      - ASID specific
  IA64     - checks active_mm
  MIPS     - ASID specific flush
  OpenRISC - shoots down world
  PARISC   - shoots down world
  SH       - ASID specific
  SPARC    - ASID specific
  x86      - N/A
  xtensa   - checks active_mm

So at the very least Alpha, IA64 and Xtensa are suspect.

On top of this, for scheduler consistency we need at least preemption
disabled across changing tsk->mm and doing switch_mm(), which is
currently provided by task_lock(), but that's not sufficient for
PREEMPT_RT.

Reported-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: stable@kernel.org
---
 kernel/kthread.c |   11 ++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/kernel/kthread.c
+++ b/kernel/kthread.c
@@ -1241,13 +1241,20 @@ void kthread_use_mm(struct mm_struct *mm
 	WARN_ON_ONCE(tsk->mm);
 
 	task_lock(tsk);
+	/*
+	 * Serialize the tsk->mm store and switch_mm() against TLB invalidation
+	 * IPIs. Also make sure we're non-preemptible on PREEMPT_RT to not race
+	 * against the scheduler writing to these variables.
+	 */
+	local_irq_disable();
 	active_mm = tsk->active_mm;
 	if (active_mm != mm) {
 		mmgrab(mm);
 		tsk->active_mm = mm;
 	}
 	tsk->mm = mm;
-	switch_mm(active_mm, mm, tsk);
+	switch_mm_irqs_off(active_mm, mm, tsk);
+	local_irq_enable();
 	task_unlock(tsk);
 #ifdef finish_arch_post_lock_switch
 	finish_arch_post_lock_switch();
@@ -1276,9 +1283,11 @@ void kthread_unuse_mm(struct mm_struct *
 
 	task_lock(tsk);
 	sync_mm_rss(mm);
+	local_irq_disable();
 	tsk->mm = NULL;
 	/* active_mm is still 'mm' */
 	enter_lazy_tlb(mm, tsk);
+	local_irq_enable();
 	task_unlock(tsk);
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kthread_unuse_mm);

  reply	other threads:[~2020-07-22  8:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-07-21 15:41 [PATCH v3] mm: Fix kthread_use_mm() vs TLB invalidate Peter Zijlstra
2020-07-21 21:06 ` Andrew Morton
2020-07-22  8:35   ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2020-07-23  7:15     ` Nicholas Piggin
2020-08-21  5:39 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2020-08-21 13:04   ` peterz
2020-08-28  3:26     ` Nicholas Piggin
2020-08-28  6:55       ` Nicholas Piggin

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=20200722083533.GK10769@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=jannh@google.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luto@amacapital.net \
    --cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
    --cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /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