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: <20120801082036.GC4436@tiehlicka.suse.cz>
Date:	Wed, 1 Aug 2012 10:20:36 +0200
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To:	Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>
Cc:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, 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 Tue 31-07-12 22:45:43, Larry Woodman wrote:
> On 07/31/2012 04:06 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >On Tue 31-07-12 13:49:21, Larry Woodman wrote:
> >>On 07/31/2012 08:46 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> >>>Fundamentally I think the problem is that we are not correctly detecting
> >>>that page table sharing took place during huge_pte_alloc(). This patch is
> >>>longer and makes an API change but if I'm right, it addresses the underlying
> >>>problem. The first VM_MAYSHARE patch is still necessary but would you mind
> >>>testing this on top please?
> >>Hi Mel, yes this does work just fine.  It ran for hours without a panic so
> >>I'll Ack this one if you send it to the list.
> >Hi Larry, thanks for testing! I have a different patch which tries to
> >address this very same issue. I am not saying it is better or that it
> >should be merged instead of Mel's one but I would be really happy if you
> >could give it a try. We can discuss (dis)advantages of both approaches
> >later.
> >
> >Thanks!
> 
> Hi Michal, the system hung when I tested this patch on top of the
> latest 3.5 kernel.  I wont have AltSysrq access to the system until
> tomorrow AM.  

Please hold on. The patch is crap. I forgot about 
if (!vma_shareable(vma, addr))
	return;

case so somebody got an uninitialized pmd. The patch bellow handles
that.

Sorry about that and thanks to Mel to notice this.
---
>From 14d1cfcb7e19369653e2367c38204b1012a398f9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:00:26 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] mm: hugetlbfs: Correctly populate shared pmd

Each page mapped in a processes address space must be correctly
accounted for in _mapcount. Normally the rules for this are
straight-forward but hugetlbfs page table sharing is different.
The page table pages at the PMD level are reference counted while
the mapcount remains the same. If this accounting is wrong, it causes
bugs like this one reported by Larry Woodman

[ 1106.156569] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[ 1106.161731] kernel BUG at mm/filemap.c:135!
[ 1106.166395] invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP
[ 1106.170975] CPU 22
[ 1106.173115] Modules linked in: bridge stp llc sunrpc binfmt_misc dcdbas microcode pcspkr acpi_pad acpi]
[ 1106.201770]
[ 1106.203426] Pid: 18001, comm: mpitest Tainted: G        W    3.3.0+ #4 Dell Inc. PowerEdge R620/07NDJ2
[ 1106.213822] RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff8112cfed>]  [<ffffffff8112cfed>] __delete_from_page_cache+0x15d/0x170
[ 1106.224117] RSP: 0018:ffff880428973b88  EFLAGS: 00010002
[ 1106.230032] RAX: 0000000000000001 RBX: ffffea0006b80000 RCX: 00000000ffffffb0
[ 1106.237979] RDX: 0000000000016df1 RSI: 0000000000000009 RDI: ffff88043ffd9e00
[ 1106.245927] RBP: ffff880428973b98 R08: 0000000000000050 R09: 0000000000000003
[ 1106.253876] R10: 000000000000000d R11: 0000000000000000 R12: ffff880428708150
[ 1106.261826] R13: ffff880428708150 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffffea0006b80000
[ 1106.269780] FS:  0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff88042fd60000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
[ 1106.278794] CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
[ 1106.285193] CR2: 0000003a1d38c4a8 CR3: 000000000187d000 CR4: 00000000000406e0
[ 1106.293149] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
[ 1106.301097] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000ffff0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
[ 1106.309046] Process mpitest (pid: 18001, threadinfo ffff880428972000, task ffff880428b5cc20)
[ 1106.318447] Stack:
[ 1106.320690]  ffffea0006b80000 0000000000000000 ffff880428973bc8 ffffffff8112d040
[ 1106.328958]  ffff880428973bc8 00000000000002ab 00000000000002a0 ffff880428973c18
[ 1106.337234]  ffff880428973cc8 ffffffff8125b405 ffff880400000001 0000000000000000
[ 1106.345513] Call Trace:
[ 1106.348235]  [<ffffffff8112d040>] delete_from_page_cache+0x40/0x80
[ 1106.355128]  [<ffffffff8125b405>] truncate_hugepages+0x115/0x1f0
[ 1106.361826]  [<ffffffff8125b4f8>] hugetlbfs_evict_inode+0x18/0x30
[ 1106.368615]  [<ffffffff811ab1af>] evict+0x9f/0x1b0
[ 1106.373951]  [<ffffffff811ab3a3>] iput_final+0xe3/0x1e0
[ 1106.379773]  [<ffffffff811ab4de>] iput+0x3e/0x50
[ 1106.384922]  [<ffffffff811a8e18>] d_kill+0xf8/0x110
[ 1106.390356]  [<ffffffff811a8f12>] dput+0xe2/0x1b0
[ 1106.395595]  [<ffffffff81193612>] __fput+0x162/0x240

During fork(), copy_hugetlb_page_range() detects if huge_pte_alloc()
shared page tables with the check dst_pte == src_pte. The logic is if
the PMD page is the same, they must be shared. This assumes that the
sharing is between the parent and child. However, if the sharing is with
a different process entirely then this check fails as in this diagram.

parent
  |
  ------------>pmd
               src_pte----------> data page
                                      ^
other--------->pmd--------------------|
                ^
child-----------|
               dst_pte

For this situation to occur, it must be possible for Parent and Other
to have faulted and failed to share page tables with each other. This is
possible due to the following style of race.

PROC A                                          PROC B
copy_hugetlb_page_range                         copy_hugetlb_page_range
  src_pte == huge_pte_offset                      src_pte == huge_pte_offset
  !src_pte so no sharing                          !src_pte so no sharing

(time passes)

hugetlb_fault                                   hugetlb_fault
  huge_pte_alloc                                  huge_pte_alloc
    huge_pmd_share                                 huge_pmd_share
      LOCK(i_mmap_mutex)
      find nothing, no sharing
      UNLOCK(i_mmap_mutex)
                                                    LOCK(i_mmap_mutex)
                                                    find nothing, no sharing
                                                    UNLOCK(i_mmap_mutex)
    pmd_alloc                                       pmd_alloc
    LOCK(instantiation_mutex)
    fault
    UNLOCK(instantiation_mutex)
                                                LOCK(instantiation_mutex)
                                                fault
                                                UNLOCK(instantiation_mutex)

These two processes are not poing to the same data page but are not sharing
page tables because the opportunity was missed. When either process later
forks, the src_pte == dst pte is potentially insufficient.  As the check
falls through, the wrong PTE information is copied in (harmless but wrong)
and the mapcount is bumped for a page mapped by a shared page table leading
to the BUG_ON.

This patch addresses the issue by moving pmd_alloc into huge_pmd_share
which guarantees that the shared pud is populated in the same
critical section as pmd. This also means that huge_pte_offset test in
huge_pmd_share is serialized correctly now.

Changelog and race identified by Mel Gorman
Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Reported-by: Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>
---
 arch/x86/mm/hugetlbpage.c |   12 ++++++++----
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/hugetlbpage.c b/arch/x86/mm/hugetlbpage.c
index f6679a7..cc385c4 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/hugetlbpage.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/hugetlbpage.c
@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ static int vma_shareable(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr)
 /*
  * search for a shareable pmd page for hugetlb.
  */
-static void huge_pmd_share(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, pud_t *pud)
+static pte_t* huge_pmd_share(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, pud_t *pud)
 {
 	struct vm_area_struct *vma = find_vma(mm, addr);
 	struct address_space *mapping = vma->vm_file->f_mapping;
@@ -68,9 +68,10 @@ static void huge_pmd_share(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, pud_t *pud)
 	struct vm_area_struct *svma;
 	unsigned long saddr;
 	pte_t *spte = NULL;
+	pte_t *pte;
 
 	if (!vma_shareable(vma, addr))
-		return;
+		return pmd_alloc(mm, pud, addr);
 
 	mutex_lock(&mapping->i_mmap_mutex);
 	vma_prio_tree_foreach(svma, &iter, &mapping->i_mmap, idx, idx) {
@@ -96,8 +97,10 @@ static void huge_pmd_share(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, pud_t *pud)
 	else
 		put_page(virt_to_page(spte));
 	spin_unlock(&mm->page_table_lock);
+	pte = pmd_alloc(mm, pud, addr);
 out:
 	mutex_unlock(&mapping->i_mmap_mutex);
+	return pte;
 }
 
 /*
@@ -142,8 +145,9 @@ pte_t *huge_pte_alloc(struct mm_struct *mm,
 		} else {
 			BUG_ON(sz != PMD_SIZE);
 			if (pud_none(*pud))
-				huge_pmd_share(mm, addr, pud);
-			pte = (pte_t *) pmd_alloc(mm, pud, addr);
+				pte = huge_pmd_share(mm, addr, pud);
+			else
+				pte = (pte_t *) pmd_alloc(mm, pud, addr);
 		}
 	}
 	BUG_ON(pte && !pte_none(*pte) && !pte_huge(*pte));
-- 
1.7.10.4

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ