Re: [PATCH] mm/gup: stop leaking pinned pages in low memory conditions

David Hildenbrand
2024-10-17T21:47:41Z

On 17.10.24 23:28, Alistair Popple wrote:
>
> David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> writes:
>
>> On 16.10.24 22:22, John Hubbard wrote:
>>> If a driver tries to call any of the pin_user_pages*(FOLL_LONGTERM)
>>> family of functions, and requests "too many" pages, then the call will
>>> erroneously leave pages pinned. This is visible in user space as an
>>> actual memory leak.
>>> Repro is trivial: just make enough pin_user_pages(FOLL_LONGTERM)
>>> calls
>>> to exhaust memory.
>>> The root cause of the problem is this sequence, within
>>> __gup_longterm_locked():
>>> __get_user_pages_locked()
>>> rc = check_and_migrate_movable_pages()
>>> ...which gets retried in a loop. The loop error handling is
>>> incomplete,
>>> clearly due to a somewhat unusual and complicated tri-state error API.
>>> But anyway, if -ENOMEM, or in fact, any unexpected error is returned
>>> from check_and_migrate_movable_pages(), then __gup_longterm_locked()
>>> happily returns the error, while leaving the pages pinned.
>>> In the failed case, which is an app that requests (via a device
>>> driver)
>>> 30720000000 bytes to be pinned, and then exits, I see this:
>>> $ grep foll /proc/vmstat
>>> nr_foll_pin_acquired 7502048
>>> nr_foll_pin_released 2048
>>> And after applying this patch, it returns to balanced pins:
>>> $ grep foll /proc/vmstat
>>> nr_foll_pin_acquired 7502048
>>> nr_foll_pin_released 7502048
>>> Fix this by unpinning the pages that __get_user_pages_locked() has
>>> pinned, in such error cases.
>>> Fixes: 24a95998e9ba ("mm/gup.c: simplify and fix
>>> check_and_migrate_movable_pages() return codes")
>>> Cc: Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>
>>> Cc: Shigeru Yoshida <syoshida@redhat.com>
>>> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>>> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
>>> Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
>>> Cc: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
>>> ---
>>> mm/gup.c | 11 +++++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>>> diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c
>>> index a82890b46a36..24acf53c8294 100644
>>> --- a/mm/gup.c
>>> +++ b/mm/gup.c
>>> @@ -2492,6 +2492,17 @@ static long __gup_longterm_locked(struct mm_struct *mm,
>>> /* FOLL_LONGTERM implies FOLL_PIN */
>>> rc = check_and_migrate_movable_pages(nr_pinned_pages, pages);
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * The __get_user_pages_locked() call happens before we know
>>> + * that whether it's possible to successfully complete the whole
>>> + * operation. To compensate for this, if we get an unexpected
>>> + * error (such as -ENOMEM) then we must unpin everything, before
>>> + * erroring out.
>>> + */
>>> + if (rc != -EAGAIN && rc != 0)
>>> + unpin_user_pages(pages, nr_pinned_pages);
>>> +
>>> } while (rc == -EAGAIN);
>>
>> Wouldn't it be cleaner to simply have here after the loop (possibly
>> even after the memalloc_pin_restore())
>>
>> if (rc)
>> unpin_user_pages(pages, nr_pinned_pages);
>>
>> But maybe I am missing something.
>
> I initially thought the same thing but I'm not sure it is
> correct. Consider what happens when __get_user_pages_locked() fails
> earlier in the loop. In this case it will have bailed out of the loop
> with rc <= 0 but we shouldn't call unpin_user_pages().

Ah, I see what you mean, I primarily only stared at the diff.

We should likely avoid using nr_pinned_pages as a temporary variable that
can hold an error value.

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb