Re: [PATCH 3/4] mm: replace rw_semaphore with atomic_t in vma_lock

Suren Baghdasaryan
2024-12-12T03:01:29Z

On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 7:20 AM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 12:25 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 03:37:50PM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> >
> > > > Replace vm_lock with vm_refcnt. Replace vm_detached with vm_refcnt == 0
> > > > -- that is, attach sets refcount to 1 to indicate it is part of the mas,
> > > > detached is the final 'put'.
> > >
> > > I need to double-check if we ever write-lock a detached vma. I don't
> > > think we do but better be safe. If we do then that wait-until() should
> > > accept 0x8000'0001 as well.
> >
> > vma_start_write()
> > __is_vma_write_locked()
> > mmap_assert_write_locked(vma->vm_mm);
> >
> > So this really should hold afaict.
> >
> > > > RCU lookup does the inc_not_zero thing, when increment succeeds, compare
> > > > mm/addr to validate.
> > > >
> > > > vma_start_write() already relies on mmap_lock being held for writing,
> > > > and thus does not have to worry about writer-vs-writer contention, that
> > > > is fully resolved by mmap_sem. This means we only need to wait for
> > > > readers to drop out.
> > > >
> > > > vma_start_write()
> > > > add(0x8000'0001); // could fetch_add and double check the high
> > > > // bit wasn't already set.
> > > > wait-until(refcnt == 0x8000'0002); // mas + writer ref
> > > > WRITE_ONCE(vma->vm_lock_seq, mm_lock_seq);
> > > > sub(0x8000'0000);
> > > >
> > > > vma_end_write()
> > > > put();
> > >
> > > We don't really have vma_end_write(). Instead it's vma_end_write_all()
> > > which increments mm_lock_seq unlocking all write-locked VMAs.
> > > Therefore in vma_start_write() I think we can sub(0x8000'0001) at the
> > > end.
> >
> > Right, I know you don't, but you should :-), I've suggested adding this
> > before.
>
> I'll look into adding it. IIRC there was some issue with that but I
> can't recall...
>
> >
> > > > vma_start_read() then becomes something like:
> > > >
> > > > if (vm_lock_seq == mm_lock_seq)
> > > > return false;
> > > >
> > > > cnt = fetch_inc(1);
> > > > if (cnt & msb || vm_lock_seq == mm_lock_seq) {
> > > > put();
> > > > return false;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > return true;
> > > >
> > > > vma_end_read() then becomes:
> > > > put();
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > and the down_read() from uffffffd requires mmap_read_lock() and thus
> > > > does not have to worry about writers, it can simpy be inc() and put(),
> > > > no?
> > >
> > > I think your proposal should work. Let me try to code it and see if
> > > something breaks.

Ok, I tried it out and things are a bit more complex:
1. We should allow write-locking a detached VMA, IOW vma_start_write()
can be called when vm_refcnt is 0. In that situation add(0x8000'0001)
leads to "addition on 0; use-after-free". Maybe I can introduce a new
refcnt function which does not complain when adding to 0?
2. Adding 0x80000000 saturates refcnt, so I have to use a lower bit
0x40000000 to denote writers.
3. Currently vma_mark_attached() can be called on an already attached
VMA. With vma->detached being a separate attribute that works fine but
when we combine it with the vm_lock things break (extra attach would
leak into lock count). I'll see if I can catch all the cases when we
do this and clean them up (not call vma_mark_attached() when not
necessary).

> >
> > Btw, for the wait-until() and put() you can use rcuwait; that is the
> > simplest wait form we have. It's suitable because we only ever have the
> > one waiter.
>
> Yes, Davidlohr mentioned that before. I'll do that. Thanks!