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

Alistair Popple
2024-10-17T21:36:38Z

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().

>> memalloc_pin_restore(flags);
>> return rc ? rc : nr_pinned_pages;