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 65B9C70807 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2025 01:54:08 +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=1740102850; cv=none; b=ZXjBVGaaEvM+BLQ8rbw5Pzmo/uSzRg5cNYLRHbuuluoJF4QzsK1fnrb2DRhaqG/if0i+yHbtVS5+/O/R7MG1gAKNkjGvET3uddWLtRnI7QntOEzo8eU5c9ICxRdjHeLZ89oaJ+ZqT1ZV27urru+DhVyxrGr/pbbbFKO/paD9898= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740102850; c=relaxed/simple; bh=cduktGN+FoV1b3nhPms64jr9/RcR4RsI4VUHnLv1HTk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=pHpzr4s+lVX3TWPmu881wtbxSCXDc/yc9ItNPIsRWnrU/GbmqiWRb1gv6reE+LyIuf3FHavEJyzOtBSGfr/04eFiJ99i4/XxhQPtpfDCvpHaDvDJj3LimlLa8P6RXKzzvyOrdfwWlDH3fRi3yJ9gIzeYfM071xbnWAKjb/EIE9w= 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=OlvVn42H; 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="OlvVn42H" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1740102847; 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=5OAFXYnALRZTyV+LNguXtTPvraFsCYlDyGOu4JUK444=; b=OlvVn42HcbKIJRxdhZvZi8eSR8DCpRRlz+xTAHXwebmhDeA3DLUUwdmqSc/3OG6ITP25i5 gqSQRwq0/S34dSI+VH1RILgMZJoeDh+Q4SBvLJllYyV8rM/y6x033KyQjvOFJSGb+YoLpH 0qEFmhYL9E0B6Es0KLBwfF4V6Uj8AGU= Received: from mail-qt1-f200.google.com (mail-qt1-f200.google.com [209.85.160.200]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-495-zAc8WAGEMECrOj6CCEFL0g-1; Thu, 20 Feb 2025 20:54:05 -0500 X-MC-Unique: zAc8WAGEMECrOj6CCEFL0g-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: zAc8WAGEMECrOj6CCEFL0g_1740102845 Received: by mail-qt1-f200.google.com with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-471ea7666c7so29963171cf.0 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2025 17:54:05 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1740102845; x=1740707645; 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=5OAFXYnALRZTyV+LNguXtTPvraFsCYlDyGOu4JUK444=; b=LHNrdCznpPxgfUM8mdSR22YNmpx/SMYe/s9kbbwrH4gvOvMi1kKnVPeaIJVlo3hDUO sFlWgmzl7Ls6l86p4Tb8WQ/mGbeCkdeEyRBYRMQumxFn9EfS/uLMA4dOzKMroqZYpdcl 7/lziWX2acVAewG5z4nbEfudKdSSHwSyQvUnPO3tBy9zBNMyKR6lb1ZZzh6nxN7LZXVt 1zNiwW56nvCFHrtq7jEwH/6nA+/xhnibmqxiUekqdrxj3s6TmpK6qpQ/2/7oKOQSPvSd E3Wyy3bQvGBSezYXHqOvalWQpgskkwUL2ojZwEEEmQAK6UzDWi9I2oGtNAHjoI6l1iN+ Z7TA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCURBXg2muuAFZJD/t13c17lP6U969WpCwKEc04wBY/zBOpzqRH2Nb1rHe/sy6saKVato+J5YPBfAQy1lc4=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yzvhxbp9abIvnXdA8yXjZESCqEQoe2slA79Zmp0NtTiI0iho2g+ 61KtYgjfU9BA1k4iaWWXplRUthkozuncstihoeRgeD2aXgKt9WKqYgWW4RSL5gWsL9KF0Tl7vO8 ypA+P5aB9LwLtgxh1CAchb6MHExKjD1tnG/ngWtFucWACehAGeTSwtg2D8S0cJA== X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncvQ6pe/goFjop2iXlSQv+L1tXX/B8C2PYgasz34+6uQKTeCzU/LBiWXNeeLejH 9ReYWntqo2D2EcvOMZlDKVLI8ixdSzpe3LH021Mc2l9IeQ2CSrJw4k3BC015xTqf1RZN9AB/hb0 yB80IvWoAYB4+crtu8RD3bla0tcJ1dRLS8Zq8kuaoyeMx8HUcllBnWj1p7VrqUbLxgryNA1C3TZ YnVZiP6BPUQdhcmjY30wtkFXQXVkG8W+CovYt7fI0upBeCPYUOwfzqTg74yERyWjeqkFQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:252:b0:472:d35:6004 with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-472249072afmr14859101cf.50.1740102845161; Thu, 20 Feb 2025 17:54:05 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IE3boZYPdobPm9o/YjX/wkHkkiexeB/6RDhOZf6LJhMj2dbl+gb5I4Is59rlw9q5wOfgif13g== X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:252:b0:472:d35:6004 with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-472249072afmr14858711cf.50.1740102844689; Thu, 20 Feb 2025 17:54:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from x1.local ([2604:7a40:2041:2b00::1000]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d75a77b69052e-47201c9eecesm35363631cf.37.2025.02.20.17.54.02 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 20 Feb 2025 17:54:04 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 20:54:00 -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 Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 02:36:27PM +1300, Barry Song wrote: > On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 11:59 AM Peter Xu wrote: > > > > 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. > > You're absolutely right. The problem goes beyond just crashes; we're > also dealing with CoW when KSM is enabled. As long as we disable > KSM(which is true for Android), or when we are dealing with a large folio, > ksm_might_need_to_copy() will not allocate a new copy: Ah! That explains it.. > > struct folio *ksm_might_need_to_copy(struct folio *folio, > struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr) > { > > struct page *page = folio_page(folio, 0); > struct anon_vma *anon_vma = folio_anon_vma(folio); > struct folio *new_folio; > > if (folio_test_large(folio)) > return folio; > .... > } > > Thanks for your great findings! For the KSM-enabled and small folio case, > it's pretty funny how UFFDIO_MOVE finally turns into a new allocation and > copy— somehow automatically falling back to "UFFDIO_COPY" :-) > It's amusing, but debugging it is fun. > > I'll add your findings to the changelog when I formally send v2, after gathering > all the code refinement suggestions and implementing the improvements. Thanks, that'll be helpful. I wanted to try with !KSM build but it's pretty late today (and it's company-wise PTO tomorrow..). Just in case useful, this is the reproducer I mentioned that didn't yet trigger when with KSM: https://github.com/xzpeter/clibs/blob/master/uffd-test/uffd-move-bug.c I'm not sure whether it'll also reproduce there, but there's chance it is a simpler reproducer. > > > > > 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 > > > > Thanks > Barry > -- Peter Xu