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  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:   Thu, 14 Oct 2021 19:43:08 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc:     Alex Sierra <alex.sierra@....com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        Felix.Kuehling@....com, linux-mm@...ck.org, rcampbell@...dia.com,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
        amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        hch@....de, jglisse@...hat.com, apopple@...dia.com,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>, nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] mm: remove extra ZONE_DEVICE struct page refcount


It would probably help if you cc'd Dan on this.
As far as I know he's the only person left who cares about GUP on DAX.

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 02:06:34PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 10:39:28AM -0500, Alex Sierra wrote:
> > From: Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>
> > 
> > ZONE_DEVICE struct pages have an extra reference count that complicates the
> > code for put_page() and several places in the kernel that need to check the
> > reference count to see that a page is not being used (gup, compaction,
> > migration, etc.). Clean up the code so the reference count doesn't need to
> > be treated specially for ZONE_DEVICE.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Alex Sierra <alex.sierra@....com>
> > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
> > ---
> > v2:
> > AS: merged this patch in linux 5.11 version
> > 
> > v5:
> > AS: add condition at try_grab_page to check for the zone device type, while
> > page ref counter is checked less/equal to zero. In case of device zone, pages
> > ref counter are initialized to zero.
> > 
> > v7:
> > AS: fix condition at try_grab_page added at v5, is invalid. It supposed
> > to fix xfstests/generic/413 test, however, there's a known issue on
> > this test where DAX mapped area DIO to non-DAX expect to fail.
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/fstests/patch/1489463960-3579-1-git-send-email-xzhou@redhat.com
> > This condition was removed after rebase over patch series
> > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210813044133.1536842-4-jhubbard@nvidia.com
> > ---
> >  arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_uvmem.c     |  2 +-
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_dmem.c |  2 +-
> >  fs/dax.c                               |  4 +-
> >  include/linux/dax.h                    |  2 +-
> >  include/linux/memremap.h               |  7 +--
> >  include/linux/mm.h                     | 11 ----
> >  lib/test_hmm.c                         |  2 +-
> >  mm/internal.h                          |  8 +++
> >  mm/memcontrol.c                        |  6 +--
> >  mm/memremap.c                          | 69 +++++++-------------------
> >  mm/migrate.c                           |  5 --
> >  mm/page_alloc.c                        |  3 ++
> >  mm/swap.c                              | 45 ++---------------
> >  13 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 120 deletions(-)
> 
> Has anyone tested this with FSDAX? Does get_user_pages() on fsdax
> backed memory still work?
> 
> What refcount value does the struct pages have when they are installed
> in the PTEs? Remember a 0 refcount will make all the get_user_pages()
> fail.
> 
> I'm looking at the call path starting in ext4_punch_hole() and I would
> expect to see something manipulating the page ref count before
> the ext4_break_layouts() call path gets to the dax_page_unused() test.
> 
> All I see is we go into unmap_mapping_pages() - that would normally
> put back the page references held by PTEs but insert_pfn() has this:
> 
> 	if (pfn_t_devmap(pfn))
> 		entry = pte_mkdevmap(pfn_t_pte(pfn, prot));
> 
> And:
> 
> static inline pte_t pte_mkdevmap(pte_t pte)
> {
> 	return pte_set_flags(pte, _PAGE_SPECIAL|_PAGE_DEVMAP);
> }
> 
> Which interacts with vm_normal_page():
> 
> 		if (pte_devmap(pte))
> 			return NULL;
> 
> To disable that refcounting?
> 
> So... I have a feeling this will have PTEs pointing to 0 refcount
> pages? Unless FSDAX is !pte_devmap which is not the case, right?
> 
> This seems further confirmed by this comment:
> 
> 	/*
> 	 * If we race get_user_pages_fast() here either we'll see the
> 	 * elevated page count in the iteration and wait, or
> 	 * get_user_pages_fast() will see that the page it took a reference
> 	 * against is no longer mapped in the page tables and bail to the
> 	 * get_user_pages() slow path.  The slow path is protected by
> 	 * pte_lock() and pmd_lock(). New references are not taken without
> 	 * holding those locks, and unmap_mapping_pages() will not zero the
> 	 * pte or pmd without holding the respective lock, so we are
> 	 * guaranteed to either see new references or prevent new
> 	 * references from being established.
> 	 */
> 
> Which seems to explain this scheme relies on unmap_mapping_pages() to
> fence GUP_fast, not on GUP_fast observing 0 refcounts when it should
> stop.
> 
> This seems like it would be properly fixed by using normal page
> refcounting for PTEs - ie stop using special for these pages?
> 
> Does anyone know why devmap is pte_special anyhow?
> 
> > +void free_zone_device_page(struct page *page)
> > +{
> > +	switch (page->pgmap->type) {
> > +	case MEMORY_DEVICE_PRIVATE:
> > +		free_device_page(page);
> > +		return;
> > +	case MEMORY_DEVICE_FS_DAX:
> > +		/* notify page idle */
> > +		wake_up_var(&page->_refcount);
> > +		return;
> 
> It is not for this series, but I wonder if we should just always call
> ops->page_free and have free_device_page() logic in that callback for
> the non-fs-dax cases?
> 
> For instance where is the mem_cgroup_charge() call to pair with the
> mem_cgroup_uncharge() in free_device_page()?
> 
> Isn't cgroup charging (or not) the responsibility of the "allocator"
> eg the pgmap_ops owner?
> 
> Jason

Powered by blists - more mailing lists