| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 00:22:42 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Cc: gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Milton Miller <miltonm@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Arun Bhanu <ab@...nbhanu.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG?] memory hotplug: include/linux/radix-tree.h:145 invoked
rcu_dereference_check() without protection!
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 09:28:28AM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 08:39:12AM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 09:04:13AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 10:50 PM, Gerald Schaefer
> > > <gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > I got the same warning now after increasing /proc/sys/vm/nr_hugepages, see
> > > > below. Both cases are easily reproducible: memory unplug with big page cache,
> > > > or adding large pages during run-time.
> > > >
> > > > ===================================================
> > > > [ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ]
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------
> > > > include/linux/radix-tree.h:145 invoked rcu_dereference_check() without protection!
> > > >
> > > > other info that might help us debug this:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 0
> > > > 1 lock held by bash/761:
> > > > #0: (&(&inode->i_data.tree_lock)->rlock){..-.-.}, at: [<00000000002263ae>] migrate_page_move_mapping+0x4a/0x2d8
> > > >
> > > > stack backtrace:
> > > > CPU: 1 Not tainted 2.6.37-rc6 #4
> > > > Process bash (pid: 761, task: 00000000181b5540, ksp: 00000000181bb7f8)
> > > > 00000000181bb818 00000000181bb798 0000000000000002 0000000000000000
> > > > 00000000181bb838 00000000181bb7b0 00000000181bb7b0 000000000056bafa
> > > > 0000000000000000 000000003f42bdf0 0000000000000002 000000001c43be30
> > > > 000003e00000000d 000003e00000000c 00000000181bb800 0000000000000000
> > > > 0000000000000000 0000000000100bfa 00000000181bb798 00000000181bb7d8
> > > > Call Trace:
> > > > ([<0000000000100b02>] show_trace+0xee/0x144)
> > > > [<000000000022654e>] migrate_page_move_mapping+0x1ea/0x2d8
> > > > [<0000000000226c80>] migrate_page+0x38/0x68
> > > > [<0000000000226d9a>] move_to_new_page+0xea/0x2bc
> > > > [<000000000022785a>] migrate_pages+0x496/0x568
> > > > [<000000000021e24e>] compact_zone+0x432/0x7d8
> > > > [<000000000021e772>] compact_zone_order+0x9e/0xbc
> > > > [<000000000021ed52>] try_to_compact_pages+0x1ba/0x24c
> > > > [<00000000001e1afa>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x86a/0xa64
> > > > [<000000000021c80c>] alloc_fresh_huge_page.clone.2+0x68/0x18c
> > > > [<000000000021cc4c>] set_max_huge_pages.clone.0+0xa4/0x1ac
> > > > [<000000000021ce06>] hugetlb_sysctl_handler+0xb2/0xcc
> > > > [<00000000002a6572>] proc_sys_call_handler+0xe6/0x10c
> > > > [<00000000002a65be>] proc_sys_write+0x26/0x34
> > > > [<00000000002336e0>] vfs_write+0xac/0x18c
> > > > [<00000000002338bc>] SyS_write+0x58/0xa8
> > > > [<0000000000113976>] sysc_noemu+0x16/0x1c
> > > > [<0000020000162edc>] 0x20000162edc
> > > > INFO: lockdep is turned off.
> > > >
> > > > I honestly do not understand 100% why this is a false positive, seeing that
> > > > e.g. find_get_page() will also use radix_tree_deref_slot(), holding only the
> > > > rcu_read_lock, while migrate_page_move_mapping() has no rcu_read_lock() but
> > > > the &mapping->tree_lock instead. So I'm not quite sure how to fix this
> > > > properly, but simply adding rcu_read_lock/unlock() to the affected code paths,
> > > > even if it is not necessary for synchronization, would get rid of the warning,
> > > > like in the following patch. Any ideas?
> > >
> > > In case of anon page, we hold rcu_read_lock in unmap_and_move.
> > > The problem is file-backed page. In case of that, we hold lock_page
> > > and mapping->tree_lock as update-side lock.
> > > So we don't need rcu_read_lock.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c | 2 ++
> > > > mm/migrate.c | 4 ++++
> > > > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > --- a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
> > > > @@ -580,7 +580,9 @@ static int hugetlbfs_migrate_page(struct
> > > > {
> > > > int rc;
> > > >
> > > > + rcu_read_lock();
> > > > rc = migrate_huge_page_move_mapping(mapping, newpage, page);
> > > > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > > > if (rc)
> > > > return rc;
> > > > migrate_page_copy(newpage, page);
> > > > --- a/mm/migrate.c
> > > > +++ b/mm/migrate.c
> > > > @@ -417,7 +417,9 @@ int migrate_page(struct address_space *m
> > > >
> > > > BUG_ON(PageWriteback(page)); /* Writeback must be complete */
> > > >
> > > > + rcu_read_lock();
> > > > rc = migrate_page_move_mapping(mapping, newpage, page);
> > > > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > > >
> > > > if (rc)
> > > > return rc;
> > > > @@ -444,7 +446,9 @@ int buffer_migrate_page(struct address_s
> > > >
> > > > head = page_buffers(page);
> > > >
> > > > + rcu_read_lock();
> > > > rc = migrate_page_move_mapping(mapping, newpage, page);
> > > > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > > >
> > > > if (rc)
> > > > return rc;
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > How about this?
> > > Maybe Paul have better idea.
> > > (It's apparently be word-wrapped.)
> > >
> >
> > heh, I wrote a patch almost identical to this and ran it overnight for testing
> > (test was a memory consumer running while a parallel process grew and shrunk
> > the hugepage pool). It passes but that is hardly a surprise. We differed
> > slightly in a number of respects though.
> >
>
> For completeness, this is what I tested last night. There are two "confirms"
> in the changelog that I intended to work out today but maybe someone can
> confirm faster.
>
> ==== CUT HERE ====
> mm: migration: Use rcu_dereference_protected when dereferencing the radix tree slot during file page migration
>
> migrate_pages() -> unmap_and_move() only calls rcu_read_lock() for anonymous
> pages, as introduced by git commit 989f89c57e6361e7d16fbd9572b5da7d313b073d.
> The point of the RCU protection there is part of getting a stable reference
> to anon_vma and is only held for anon pages as file pages are locked
> which is sufficient protection against freeing.
>
> However, while a file page's mapping is being migrated, the radix tree
> is double checked to ensure it is the expected page. This uses
> radix_tree_deref_slot() -> rcu_dereference() without the RCU lock held
> triggering the following warning.
>
> [ 173.674290] ===================================================
> [ 173.676016] [ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ]
> [ 173.676016] ---------------------------------------------------
> [ 173.676016] include/linux/radix-tree.h:145 invoked rcu_dereference_check() without protection!
> [ 173.676016]
> [ 173.676016] other info that might help us debug this:
> [ 173.676016]
> [ 173.676016]
> [ 173.676016] rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 0
> [ 173.676016] 1 lock held by hugeadm/2899:
> [ 173.676016] #0: (&(&inode->i_data.tree_lock)->rlock){..-.-.}, at: [<c10e3d2b>] migrate_page_move_mapping+0x40/0x1ab
> [ 173.676016]
> [ 173.676016] stack backtrace:
> [ 173.676016] Pid: 2899, comm: hugeadm Not tainted 2.6.37-rc5-autobuild
> [ 173.676016] Call Trace:
> [ 173.676016] [<c128cc01>] ? printk+0x14/0x1b
> [ 173.676016] [<c1063502>] lockdep_rcu_dereference+0x7d/0x86
> [ 173.676016] [<c10e3db5>] migrate_page_move_mapping+0xca/0x1ab
> [ 173.676016] [<c10e41ad>] migrate_page+0x23/0x39
> [ 173.676016] [<c10e491b>] buffer_migrate_page+0x22/0x107
> [ 173.676016] [<c10e48f9>] ? buffer_migrate_page+0x0/0x107
> [ 173.676016] [<c10e425d>] move_to_new_page+0x9a/0x1ae
> [ 173.676016] [<c10e47e6>] migrate_pages+0x1e7/0x2fa
>
> This patch introduces radix_tree_deref_slot_protected() which calls
> rcu_dereference_protected(). Users of it must pass in the mapping->tree_lock
> that is protecting this dereference. Based on the locking hierarchy described
> in mm/filemap.c, holding the tree lock is protecting the radix tree from
> concurrent updaters in all cases (Confirm that no case has been missed).
> According to Documentation/RCU/lockdep.txt, if there is a guarantee that
> no parallel updaters exist, use of rcu_dereference_protected() is allowed
> (Confirm this is accurate?).
>
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
> ---
> include/linux/radix-tree.h | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
> mm/migrate.c | 4 ++--
> 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/radix-tree.h b/include/linux/radix-tree.h
> index ab2baa5..252d21c 100644
> --- a/include/linux/radix-tree.h
> +++ b/include/linux/radix-tree.h
> @@ -146,6 +146,25 @@ static inline void *radix_tree_deref_slot(void **pslot)
> }
>
> /**
> + * radix_tree_deref_slot_protected - dereference a slot without RCU lock but with tree lock held
> + * @pslot: pointer to slot, returned by radix_tree_lookup_slot
> + * Returns: item that was stored in that slot with any direct pointer flag
> + * removed.
> + *
> + * For use with radix_tree_lookup_slot(). Caller must hold tree read
> + * locked across slot lookup and dereference. Not required if write lock is
> + * held (ie. items cannot be concurrently inserted).
> + *
> + * radix_tree_deref_retry must be used to confirm validity of the pointer if
> + * only the read lock is held.
> + */
> +static inline void *radix_tree_deref_slot_protected(void **pslot,
> + spinlock_t *treelock)
> +{
> + return rcu_dereference_protected(*pslot, lockdep_is_held(treelock));
> +}
It seems to be good than mine. Just a nitpick.
Can't we get the mutex lock as update-side lock in future?
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists