linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -alternative] mm: hugetlbfs: Close race during teardown of hugetlbfs shared page tables V2 (resend)

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]

Message-ID: <50120FA8.20409@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jul 2012 23:48:56 -0400
From:	Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
CC:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
	Ken Chen <kenchen@...gle.com>,
	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -alternative] mm: hugetlbfs: Close race during teardown
 of hugetlbfs shared page tables V2 (resend)

On 07/26/2012 02:37 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 07/23/2012 12:04 AM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
>> I spent hours trying to dream up a better patch, trying various
>> approaches.  I think I have a nice one now, what do you think?  And
>> more importantly, does it work?  I have not tried to test it at all,
>> that I'm hoping to leave to you, I'm sure you'll attack it with gusto!
>>
>> If you like it, please take it over and add your comments and signoff
>> and send it in.  The second part won't come up in your testing, and 
>> could
>> be made a separate patch if you prefer: it's a related point that struck
>> me while I was playing with a different approach.
>>
>> I'm sorely tempted to leave a dangerous pair of eyes off the Cc,
>> but that too would be unfair.
>>
>> Subject-to-your-testing-
>> Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
>
> This patch looks good to me.
>
> Larry, does Hugh's patch survive your testing?
>
>
Like I said earlier, no.  However, I finally set up a reproducer that 
only takes a few seconds
on a large system and this totally fixes the problem:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
index c36febb..cc023b8 100644
--- a/mm/hugetlb.c
+++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
@@ -2151,7 +2151,7 @@ int copy_hugetlb_page_range(struct mm_struct *dst, 
struct mm_struct *src,
                         goto nomem;

                 /* If the pagetables are shared don't copy or take 
references */
-               if (dst_pte == src_pte)
+               if (*(unsigned long *)dst_pte == *(unsigned long *)src_pte)
                         continue;

                 spin_lock(&dst->page_table_lock);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When we compare what the src_pte & dst_pte point to instead of their 
addresses everything works,
I suspect there is a missing memory barrier somewhere ???

Larry

--
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/