Re: [PATCH v2 8/9] hugetlb: use new vma_lock for pmd sharing synchronization

Miaohe Lin
2022-10-08T02:29:56Z

On 2022/10/1 8:00, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 09/29/22 14:08, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>> On 2022/9/15 6:18, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>>> @@ -434,6 +434,7 @@ static void hugetlb_unmap_file_folio(struct hstate *h,
>>> struct folio *folio, pgoff_t index)
>>> {
>>> struct rb_root_cached *root = &mapping->i_mmap;
>>> + struct hugetlb_vma_lock *vma_lock;
>>> struct page *page = &folio->page;
>>> struct vm_area_struct *vma;
>>> unsigned long v_start;
>>> @@ -444,7 +445,8 @@ static void hugetlb_unmap_file_folio(struct hstate *h,
>>> end = (index + 1) * pages_per_huge_page(h);
>>>
>>> i_mmap_lock_write(mapping);
>>> -
>>> +retry:
>>> + vma_lock = NULL;
>>> vma_interval_tree_foreach(vma, root, start, end - 1) {
>>> v_start = vma_offset_start(vma, start);
>>> v_end = vma_offset_end(vma, end);
>>> @@ -452,11 +454,63 @@ static void hugetlb_unmap_file_folio(struct hstate *h,
>>> if (!hugetlb_vma_maps_page(vma, vma->vm_start + v_start, page))
>>> continue;
>>>
>>> + if (!hugetlb_vma_trylock_write(vma)) {
>>> + vma_lock = vma->vm_private_data;
>>> + /*
>>> + * If we can not get vma lock, we need to drop
>>> + * immap_sema and take locks in order. First,
>>> + * take a ref on the vma_lock structure so that
>>> + * we can be guaranteed it will not go away when
>>> + * dropping immap_sema.
>>> + */
>>> + kref_get(&vma_lock->refs);
>>> + break;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> unmap_hugepage_range(vma, vma->vm_start + v_start, v_end,
>>> NULL, ZAP_FLAG_DROP_MARKER);
>>> + hugetlb_vma_unlock_write(vma);
>>> }
>>>
>>> i_mmap_unlock_write(mapping);
>>> +
>>> + if (vma_lock) {
>>> + /*
>>> + * Wait on vma_lock. We know it is still valid as we have
>>> + * a reference. We must 'open code' vma locking as we do
>>> + * not know if vma_lock is still attached to vma.
>>> + */
>>> + down_write(&vma_lock->rw_sema);
>>> + i_mmap_lock_write(mapping);
>>> +
>>> + vma = vma_lock->vma;
>>> + if (!vma) {
>>
>> Thanks Mike. This method looks much simpler. But IIUC, this code can race with exit_mmap:
>>
>> CPU 1 CPU 2
>> hugetlb_unmap_file_folio exit_mmap
>> kref_get(&vma_lock->refs);
>> down_write(&vma_lock->rw_sema);
>> free_pgtables // i_mmap_lock_write is held inside it.
>> i_mmap_lock_write(mapping);
>> vma = vma_lock->vma;
>> remove_vma
>> hugetlb_vm_op_close
>> hugetlb_vma_lock_free
>> vma_lock->vma = NULL;
>> vm_area_free(vma);
>> vma is used-after-free??
>>
>> The root casue is free_pgtables is protected with i_mmap_lock_write while remove_vma is not.
>> Or am I miss something again? ;)
>
> Thank you Miaohe! Sorry for the delay in responding.
>
> Yes, I agree this is a possible race. My first thought is that we may be
> able to address this by simply taking the vma_lock when we clear the
> vma_lock->vma field. Something like this,
>
> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
> index 4cb44a4629b8..bf0c220ebc32 100644
> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
> @@ -6918,7 +6918,9 @@ static void hugetlb_vma_lock_free(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> * certainly will no longer be attached to vma so clear
> * pointer.
> */
> + down_write(&vma_lock->rw_sema);
> vma_lock->vma = NULL;
> + up_write(&vma_lock->rw_sema);
> kref_put(&vma_lock->refs, hugetlb_vma_lock_release);
> vma->vm_private_data = NULL;
> }

AFAICT, this should work. And we won't hold the vma_lock->rw_sema when delete vma, there
should not be a possible deadlock.

>
> I still need to do a bit more work to verify.
>
> Andrew, if you are concerned I do not think this is a show stopper. The
> race should be extremely rare, and a fix should be coming quickly.

Agree, this should be really rare.

>
> <snip>
>>> + mapping = vma->vm_file->f_mapping;
>>> + idx = vma_hugecache_offset(h, vma, haddr);
>>> hash = hugetlb_fault_mutex_hash(mapping, idx);
>>> mutex_lock(&hugetlb_fault_mutex_table[hash]);
>>>
>>> + /*
>>> + * Acquire vma lock before calling huge_pte_alloc and hold
>>> + * until finished with ptep. This prevents huge_pmd_unshare from
>>> + * being called elsewhere and making the ptep no longer valid.
>>> + *
>>> + * ptep could have already be assigned via huge_pte_offset. That
>>> + * is OK, as huge_pte_alloc will return the same value unless
>>> + * something has changed.
>>> + */
>>> + hugetlb_vma_lock_read(vma);
>>
>> [1] says vma_lock for each vma mapping the file provides the same type of synchronization
>> around i_size as provided by the fault mutex. But what if vma->vm_private_data is NULL,
>> i.e. hugetlb_vma_lock_alloc fails to alloc vma_lock? There won't be such synchronization
>> in this case.
>>
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/Yxiv0SkMkZ0JWGGp@monkey/#t
>>
>
> Right.
>
> Of course, this (checking i_size) only applies to shared/file mappings.
> The only time hugetlb_vma_lock_alloc should fail in such cases is when
> we can not allocate the small vma_lock structure. Since the vma_lock
> is primarily for huge pmd sharing synchronization, my thought was that
> allocation errors would just prevent sharing. But, as you point out
> it could also impact these checks.
>
> It would be easy to check for the lock allocation failure at mmap time
> and fail the mmap. It would be a little more tricky at fork time.
>
> This also is something that is highly unlikely to occur. And, if we
> can't allocate a vma_lock I suspect we will not be up and running long
> enough for this to be an issue. :) Let me think about the best way to handle.

Agree. This should be really rare too. Thanks for your work.

Thanks,
Miaohe Lin

>
>>
>> Other parts of the patch look good to me. Thanks for your work.
>>
>
> Thanks again,
>