linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] random kernel crashes after THP rework on s390 (maybe also on PowerPC and ARM)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 12 Feb 2016 09:34:33 +0530
From:	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc:	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
	Sebastian Ott <sebott@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] random kernel crashes after THP rework on s390 (maybe also on PowerPC and ARM)

Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com> writes:

> On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 21:09:42 +0200
> "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 07:22:23PM +0100, Gerald Schaefer wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> > 
>> > Sebastian Ott reported random kernel crashes beginning with v4.5-rc1 and
>> > he also bisected this to commit 61f5d698 "mm: re-enable THP". Further
>> > review of the THP rework patches, which cannot be bisected, revealed
>> > commit fecffad "s390, thp: remove infrastructure for handling splitting PMDs"
>> > (and also similar commits for other archs).
>> > 
>> > This commit removes the THP splitting bit and also the architecture
>> > implementation of pmdp_splitting_flush(), which took care of the IPI for
>> > fast_gup serialization. The commit message says
>> > 
>> >     pmdp_splitting_flush() is not needed too: on splitting PMD we will do
>> >     pmdp_clear_flush() + set_pte_at().  pmdp_clear_flush() will do IPI as
>> >     needed for fast_gup
>> > 
>> > The assumption that a TLB flush will also produce an IPI is wrong on s390,
>> > and maybe also on other architectures, and I thought that this was actually
>> > the main reason for having an arch-specific pmdp_splitting_flush().
>> > 
>> > At least PowerPC and ARM also had an individual implementation of
>> > pmdp_splitting_flush() that used kick_all_cpus_sync() instead of a TLB
>> > flush to send the IPI, and those were also removed. Putting the arch
>> > maintainers and mailing lists on cc to verify.
>> > 
>> > On s390 this will break the IPI serialization against fast_gup, which
>> > would certainly explain the random kernel crashes, please revert or fix
>> > the pmdp_splitting_flush() removal.
>> 
>> Sorry for that.
>> 
>> I believe, the problem was already addressed for PowerPC:
>> 
>> http://lkml.kernel.org/g/454980831-16631-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com
>> 
>> I think kick_all_cpus_sync() in arch-specific pmdp_invalidate() would do
>> the trick, right?
>
> Hmm, not sure about that. After pmdp_invalidate(), a pmd_none() check in
> fast_gup will still return false, because the pmd is not empty (at least
> on s390).

Why can't we do this ? I did this for ppc64.

 void pmdp_invalidate(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address,
 		     pmd_t *pmdp)
 {
-	pmd_hugepage_update(vma->vm_mm, address, pmdp, _PAGE_PRESENT, 0);
+	pmd_hugepage_update(vma->vm_mm, address, pmdp, ~0UL, 0);

>So I don't see spontaneously how it will help fast_gup to break
> out to the slow path in case of THP splitting.
>
>> 
>> If yes, I'll prepare patch tomorrow (some sleep required).
>> 
>
> We'll check if adding kick_all_cpus_sync() to pmdp_invalidate() helps.
> It would also be good if Martin has a look at this, he'll return on
> Monday.

-aneesh