From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80AC8264F9A for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2025 22:59:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740092388; cv=none; b=dXEke+os5zXUZYEtg1MnmL7OY7tiCdVZ7j9351YcbRGUJPhFCqq/DuKyPh0arhIn8PSMHLstaOVoVF5Qxj58I1u02snfanZwXVszXRsk1BXtyfEBzZabd3CY59A/IOGGuybcUj6rxD4Lm1IVuKlQEjjcA7nJm0vNdSjQEKoBT7U= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740092388; c=relaxed/simple; bh=kEaz+LEDIgPzbQTXVd8pi8/2jGGfq2POPfbFY3Kjg1o=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=eVeMW+Uk+IrUD2v0Hpe7OeR0euRg71/GUs5iRU3aPhrUz7Sc4v/boZS4xA0V6ZcI6sUTTSFESP+EpqdjKg4p/2WWv7agsAoT39ZDnuTdM2utIxjFB9arznQ37nJCpbAl9wr/+O0KgN0a/thBIkeA8MofWGkhUIcoBsbC/8Pc94A= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=QEagEasH; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="QEagEasH" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1740092385; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=7Ft7MYuAiF7ucpJ/h4patghw6zNTpuTLvautQ1QeFK4=; b=QEagEasHLieGQi1lt2dAbkT2outSCFcMZe/rgqFCuiqgtwxuZ4IuePLATrmr3s0NV4oc0o 3DB3Y+o+gZTzm2Zh0P5poLzOcyx86raSTZy4A+j1+GXeKkxT5RARKCtr2VzS0d9H/5Uo01 AabSAbjQAn3eXu7F+QwWzK2aUQRXLk4= Received: from mail-qv1-f70.google.com (mail-qv1-f70.google.com [209.85.219.70]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-561-3wNq0goOOk6pgFAmkFGARw-1; Thu, 20 Feb 2025 17:59:44 -0500 X-MC-Unique: 3wNq0goOOk6pgFAmkFGARw-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: 3wNq0goOOk6pgFAmkFGARw_1740092383 Received: by mail-qv1-f70.google.com with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-6e1b8065ed4so26256186d6.0 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2025 14:59:43 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1740092383; x=1740697183; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=7Ft7MYuAiF7ucpJ/h4patghw6zNTpuTLvautQ1QeFK4=; b=paLK+tO3fPmzhokv1UpmNVvuQ1BraDyou7De+odx8B4A96h+IWxqoFoTLBW3da6iwN ZEy8J64xUeCkwq+R5L1uBmC5Vt/G0wM4Jd1RdiIHBDbosypOXhwxOf0+3oKixyMt5NbC EMn5lUMXqAcJhju3F83pJI2GmvAWsbY7P9BlY78lJtQO45v9iE0XqXdKA/6lmEnI260Y pQaprbA6nVPzECiKH+G3TA/d4XJFJekimuTjpL7lbwGFHrhVHzteX25WlXwQ13d29EUq MkySg3NsvAeAmA+xTileTf/vQslvvJUVMgv1XiCwYJ3OKqnqpTp83kEsLt4BMkjjB/N7 Vqxg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUVkbZx4X7VGVtDfi+QdTsneOQFNnzhZ9kv8S3CncGMulccsHiZAsqC9SQGKuFpcyPHWRNpC2hFI0+zYhw=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yzemr0gNXLYSdb+GdV7eVWRdW3Fu9L4h1bgpiGLhe94IaUg5JjZ xvb2HmBPmKgK0K0j+szfokvvaJTpxW0KwY8unSUcZWF1atWydCyzBs9wSzf8p9BWKV9HmJF0Rqs Ul3F9RguNMRr6NQcPdr1X0zKxneSxB1y0lztQmHO8nFvCpox7NievBrdUByhpLw== X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncsB/uD3NnLEFSHLlLVvMZwC+VtA2SRqSaWY2LWlmLYBtbohmI8zcBlSGHl35xc PrtfDOuFWkmB7BF/JaxD749Wd5Ur9z0SR3Gs/VkYDEpqcbxyz8HHVhJieZAU9cb1TyMAw8VB0Yv AmgJ3WsYvWBaLLkkfpxgKZszJqLKXU481H6NuuM9C3dKvCLLdf+Vsik02wSxKxFXeDae2WdWWyr u5o4n8VZ8CuvCj+5jG9XlvdfO7u8zfsP1i8vUPZSeQ5qufHljaoCXu2DlU= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:2b09:b0:6e6:61a5:aa57 with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-6e6ae7f7ec3mr14139756d6.14.1740092382680; Thu, 20 Feb 2025 14:59:42 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGXgq3/bA7uunGoqMjvsTR3RBYpyOg5N/G+5jbfhKMyNwGiiZi3WD1sqEhuAJ1pBKsYMctcgA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:2b09:b0:6e6:61a5:aa57 with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-6e6ae7f7ec3mr14139326d6.14.1740092382213; Thu, 20 Feb 2025 14:59:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from x1.local ([2604:7a40:2041:2b00::1000]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 6a1803df08f44-6e69c93e8d0sm19560186d6.108.2025.02.20.14.59.40 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 20 Feb 2025 14:59:41 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 17:59:37 -0500 From: Peter Xu To: Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com> Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan , Lokesh Gidra , linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, zhengtangquan@oppo.com, Barry Song , Andrea Arcangeli , Al Viro , Axel Rasmussen , Brian Geffon , Christian Brauner , David Hildenbrand , Hugh Dickins , Jann Horn , Kalesh Singh , "Liam R . Howlett" , Matthew Wilcox , Michal Hocko , Mike Rapoport , Nicolas Geoffray , Ryan Roberts , Shuah Khan , ZhangPeng , Yu Zhao Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] mm: Fix kernel BUG when userfaultfd_move encounters swapcache Message-ID: References: <20250219112519.92853-1-21cnbao@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 12:04:40PM +1300, Barry Song wrote: > On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 11:15 AM Peter Xu wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 09:37:50AM +1300, Barry Song wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 7:27 AM Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 3:25 AM Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > From: Barry Song > > > > > > > > > > userfaultfd_move() checks whether the PTE entry is present or a > > > > > swap entry. > > > > > > > > > > - If the PTE entry is present, move_present_pte() handles folio > > > > > migration by setting: > > > > > > > > > > src_folio->index = linear_page_index(dst_vma, dst_addr); > > > > > > > > > > - If the PTE entry is a swap entry, move_swap_pte() simply copies > > > > > the PTE to the new dst_addr. > > > > > > > > > > This approach is incorrect because even if the PTE is a swap > > > > > entry, it can still reference a folio that remains in the swap > > > > > cache. > > > > > > > > > > If do_swap_page() is triggered, it may locate the folio in the > > > > > swap cache. However, during add_rmap operations, a kernel panic > > > > > can occur due to: > > > > > page_pgoff(folio, page) != linear_page_index(vma, address) > > > > > > > > Thanks for the report and reproducer! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > $./a.out > /dev/null > > > > > [ 13.336953] page: refcount:6 mapcount:1 mapping:00000000f43db19c index:0xffffaf150 pfn:0x4667c > > > > > [ 13.337520] head: order:2 mapcount:1 entire_mapcount:0 nr_pages_mapped:1 pincount:0 > > > > > [ 13.337716] memcg:ffff00000405f000 > > > > > [ 13.337849] anon flags: 0x3fffc0000020459(locked|uptodate|dirty|owner_priv_1|head|swapbacked|node=0|zone=0|lastcpupid=0xffff) > > > > > [ 13.338630] raw: 03fffc0000020459 ffff80008507b538 ffff80008507b538 ffff000006260361 > > > > > [ 13.338831] raw: 0000000ffffaf150 0000000000004000 0000000600000000 ffff00000405f000 > > > > > [ 13.339031] head: 03fffc0000020459 ffff80008507b538 ffff80008507b538 ffff000006260361 > > > > > [ 13.339204] head: 0000000ffffaf150 0000000000004000 0000000600000000 ffff00000405f000 > > > > > [ 13.339375] head: 03fffc0000000202 fffffdffc0199f01 ffffffff00000000 0000000000000001 > > > > > [ 13.339546] head: 0000000000000004 0000000000000000 00000000ffffffff 0000000000000000 > > > > > [ 13.339736] page dumped because: VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(page_pgoff(folio, page) != linear_page_index(vma, address)) > > > > > [ 13.340190] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > > > > > [ 13.340316] kernel BUG at mm/rmap.c:1380! > > > > > [ 13.340683] Internal error: Oops - BUG: 00000000f2000800 [#1] PREEMPT SMP > > > > > [ 13.340969] Modules linked in: > > > > > [ 13.341257] CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 107 Comm: a.out Not tainted 6.14.0-rc3-gcf42737e247a-dirty #299 > > > > > [ 13.341470] Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT) > > > > > [ 13.341671] pstate: 60000005 (nZCv daif -PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--) > > > > > [ 13.341815] pc : __page_check_anon_rmap+0xa0/0xb0 > > > > > [ 13.341920] lr : __page_check_anon_rmap+0xa0/0xb0 > > > > > [ 13.342018] sp : ffff80008752bb20 > > > > > [ 13.342093] x29: ffff80008752bb20 x28: fffffdffc0199f00 x27: 0000000000000001 > > > > > [ 13.342404] x26: 0000000000000000 x25: 0000000000000001 x24: 0000000000000001 > > > > > [ 13.342575] x23: 0000ffffaf0d0000 x22: 0000ffffaf0d0000 x21: fffffdffc0199f00 > > > > > [ 13.342731] x20: fffffdffc0199f00 x19: ffff000006210700 x18: 00000000ffffffff > > > > > [ 13.342881] x17: 6c203d2120296567 x16: 6170202c6f696c6f x15: 662866666f67705f > > > > > [ 13.343033] x14: 6567617028454741 x13: 2929737365726464 x12: ffff800083728ab0 > > > > > [ 13.343183] x11: ffff800082996bf8 x10: 0000000000000fd7 x9 : ffff80008011bc40 > > > > > [ 13.343351] x8 : 0000000000017fe8 x7 : 00000000fffff000 x6 : ffff8000829eebf8 > > > > > [ 13.343498] x5 : c0000000fffff000 x4 : 0000000000000000 x3 : 0000000000000000 > > > > > [ 13.343645] x2 : 0000000000000000 x1 : ffff0000062db980 x0 : 000000000000005f > > > > > [ 13.343876] Call trace: > > > > > [ 13.344045] __page_check_anon_rmap+0xa0/0xb0 (P) > > > > > [ 13.344234] folio_add_anon_rmap_ptes+0x22c/0x320 > > > > > [ 13.344333] do_swap_page+0x1060/0x1400 > > > > > [ 13.344417] __handle_mm_fault+0x61c/0xbc8 > > > > > [ 13.344504] handle_mm_fault+0xd8/0x2e8 > > > > > [ 13.344586] do_page_fault+0x20c/0x770 > > > > > [ 13.344673] do_translation_fault+0xb4/0xf0 > > > > > [ 13.344759] do_mem_abort+0x48/0xa0 > > > > > [ 13.344842] el0_da+0x58/0x130 > > > > > [ 13.344914] el0t_64_sync_handler+0xc4/0x138 > > > > > [ 13.345002] el0t_64_sync+0x1ac/0x1b0 > > > > > [ 13.345208] Code: aa1503e0 f000f801 910f6021 97ff5779 (d4210000) > > > > > [ 13.345504] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- > > > > > [ 13.345715] note: a.out[107] exited with irqs disabled > > > > > [ 13.345954] note: a.out[107] exited with preempt_count 2 > > > > > > > > > > Fully fixing it would be quite complex, requiring similar handling > > > > > of folios as done in move_present_pte. > > > > > > > > How complex would that be? Is it a matter of adding > > > > folio_maybe_dma_pinned() checks, doing folio_move_anon_rmap() and > > > > folio->index = linear_page_index like in move_present_pte() or > > > > something more? > > > > > > My main concern is still with large folios that require a split_folio() > > > during move_pages(), as the entire folio shares the same index and > > > anon_vma. However, userfaultfd_move() moves pages individually, > > > making a split necessary. > > > > > > However, in split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(), there is a: > > > > > > if (folio_test_writeback(folio)) > > > return -EBUSY; > > > > > > This is likely true for swapcache, right? However, even for move_present_pte(), > > > it simply returns -EBUSY: > > > > > > move_pages_pte() > > > { > > > /* at this point we have src_folio locked */ > > > if (folio_test_large(src_folio)) { > > > /* split_folio() can block */ > > > pte_unmap(&orig_src_pte); > > > pte_unmap(&orig_dst_pte); > > > src_pte = dst_pte = NULL; > > > err = split_folio(src_folio); > > > if (err) > > > goto out; > > > > > > /* have to reacquire the folio after it got split */ > > > folio_unlock(src_folio); > > > folio_put(src_folio); > > > src_folio = NULL; > > > goto retry; > > > } > > > } > > > > > > Do we need a folio_wait_writeback() before calling split_folio()? > > > > Maybe no need in the first version to fix the immediate bug? > > > > It's also not always the case to hit writeback here. IIUC, writeback only > > happens for a short window when the folio was just added into swapcache. > > MOVE can happen much later after that anytime before a swapin. My > > understanding is that's also what Matthew wanted to point out. It may be > > better justified of that in a separate change with some performance > > measurements. > > The bug we’re discussing occurs precisely within the short window you > mentioned. > > 1. add_to_swap: The folio is added to swapcache. > 2. try_to_unmap: PTEs are converted to swap entries. > 3. pageout > 4. Swapcache is cleared. Hmm, I see. I was expecting step 4 to be "writeback is cleared".. or at least that should be step 3.5, as IIUC "writeback" needs to be cleared before "swapcache" bit being cleared. > > The issue happens between steps 2 and 4, where the PTE is not present, but > the folio is still in swapcache - the current code does move_swap_pte() but does > not fixup folio->index within swapcache. One thing I'm still not clear here is why it's a race condition, rather than more severe than that. I mean, folio->index is definitely wrong, then as long as the page still in swapcache, we should be able to move the swp entry over to dest addr of UFFDIO_MOVE, read on dest addr, then it'll see the page in swapcache with the wrong folio->index already and trigger. I wrote a quick test like that, it actually won't trigger.. I had a closer look in the code, I think it's because do_swap_page() has the logic to detect folio->index matching first, and allocate a new folio if it doesn't match in ksm_might_need_to_copy(). IIUC that was for ksm.. but it looks like it's functioning too here. ksm_might_need_to_copy: if (folio_test_ksm(folio)) { if (folio_stable_node(folio) && !(ksm_run & KSM_RUN_UNMERGE)) return folio; /* no need to copy it */ } else if (!anon_vma) { return folio; /* no need to copy it */ } else if (folio->index == linear_page_index(vma, addr) && <---------- [1] anon_vma->root == vma->anon_vma->root) { return folio; /* still no need to copy it */ } ... new_folio = vma_alloc_folio(GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE, 0, vma, addr); <---- [2] ... So I believe what I hit is at [1] it sees index doesn't match, then it decided to allocate a new folio. In this case, it won't hit your BUG because it'll be "folio != swapcache" later, so it'll setup the folio->index for the new one, rather than the sanity check. Do you know how your case got triggered, being able to bypass the above [1] which should check folio->index already? > > My point is that if we want a proper fix for mTHP, we'd better handle writeback. > Otherwise, this isn’t much different from directly returning -EBUSY as proposed > in this RFC. > > For small folios, there’s no split_folio issue, making it relatively > simpler. Lokesh > mentioned plans to madvise NOHUGEPAGE in ART, so fixing small folios is likely > the first priority. Agreed. -- Peter Xu