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);
next prev parent 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