| 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: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:34:25 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] mm, mempolicy: Introduce spinlock to read shared policy tree
Going through some old emails before -rc1 rlease..
What is the status of this patch? The patch that is reported to cause
the problem hasn't been merged, but that mpol_misplaced() thing did
happen in commit 771fb4d806a9. And it looks like it's called from
numa_migrate_prep() under the pte map lock. Or am I missing something?
See commit 9532fec118d ("mm: numa: Migrate pages handled during a
pmd_numa hinting fault").
Am I missing something? Mel, please take another look.
I despise these kinds of dual-locking models, and am wondering if we
can't have *just* the spinlock?
Linus
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 4:56 PM, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:
> From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
>
> Sasha was fuzzing with trinity and reported the following problem:
>
> BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/mutex.c:269
> in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 6361, name: trinity-main
> 2 locks held by trinity-main/6361:
> #0: (&mm->mmap_sem){++++++}, at: [<ffffffff810aa314>] __do_page_fault+0x1e4/0x4f0
> #1: (&(&mm->page_table_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8122f017>] handle_pte_fault+0x3f7/0x6a0
> Pid: 6361, comm: trinity-main Tainted: G W 3.7.0-rc2-next-20121024-sasha-00001-gd95ef01-dirty #74
> Call Trace:
> [<ffffffff8114e393>] __might_sleep+0x1c3/0x1e0
> [<ffffffff83ae5209>] mutex_lock_nested+0x29/0x50
> [<ffffffff8124fc3e>] mpol_shared_policy_lookup+0x2e/0x90
> [<ffffffff81219ebe>] shmem_get_policy+0x2e/0x30
> [<ffffffff8124e99a>] get_vma_policy+0x5a/0xa0
> [<ffffffff8124fce1>] mpol_misplaced+0x41/0x1d0
> [<ffffffff8122f085>] handle_pte_fault+0x465/0x6a0
>
> do_numa_page() calls the new mpol_misplaced() function introduced by
> "sched, numa, mm: Add the scanning page fault machinery" in the page fault
> patch while holding mm->page_table_lock and then
> mpol_shared_policy_lookup() ends up trying to take the shared policy
> mutex.
>
> The fix is to protect the shared policy tree with both a spinlock and
> mutex; both must be held to modify the tree, but only one is required to
> read the tree. This allows sp_lookup() to grab the spinlock for read.
>
> [rientjes@...gle.com: wrote changelog]
> Reported-by: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
> Tested-by: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
> ---
> include/linux/mempolicy.h | 1 +
> mm/mempolicy.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++-----
> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/mempolicy.h b/include/linux/mempolicy.h
> --- a/include/linux/mempolicy.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mempolicy.h
> @@ -133,6 +133,7 @@ struct sp_node {
>
> struct shared_policy {
> struct rb_root root;
> + spinlock_t lock;
> struct mutex mutex;
> };
>
> diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
> --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
> +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> @@ -2090,12 +2090,20 @@ bool __mpol_equal(struct mempolicy *a, struct mempolicy *b)
> *
> * Remember policies even when nobody has shared memory mapped.
> * The policies are kept in Red-Black tree linked from the inode.
> - * They are protected by the sp->lock spinlock, which should be held
> - * for any accesses to the tree.
> + *
> + * The rb-tree is locked using both a mutex and a spinlock. Every modification
> + * to the tree must hold both the mutex and the spinlock, lookups can hold
> + * either to observe a stable tree.
> + *
> + * In particular, sp_insert() and sp_delete() take the spinlock, whereas
> + * sp_lookup() doesn't, this so users have choice.
> + *
> + * shared_policy_replace() and mpol_free_shared_policy() take the mutex
> + * and call sp_insert(), sp_delete().
> */
>
> /* lookup first element intersecting start-end */
> -/* Caller holds sp->mutex */
> +/* Caller holds either sp->lock and/or sp->mutex */
> static struct sp_node *
> sp_lookup(struct shared_policy *sp, unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
> {
> @@ -2134,6 +2142,7 @@ static void sp_insert(struct shared_policy *sp, struct sp_node *new)
> struct rb_node *parent = NULL;
> struct sp_node *nd;
>
> + spin_lock(&sp->lock);
> while (*p) {
> parent = *p;
> nd = rb_entry(parent, struct sp_node, nd);
> @@ -2146,6 +2155,7 @@ static void sp_insert(struct shared_policy *sp, struct sp_node *new)
> }
> rb_link_node(&new->nd, parent, p);
> rb_insert_color(&new->nd, &sp->root);
> + spin_unlock(&sp->lock);
> pr_debug("inserting %lx-%lx: %d\n", new->start, new->end,
> new->policy ? new->policy->mode : 0);
> }
> @@ -2159,13 +2169,13 @@ mpol_shared_policy_lookup(struct shared_policy *sp, unsigned long idx)
>
> if (!sp->root.rb_node)
> return NULL;
> - mutex_lock(&sp->mutex);
> + spin_lock(&sp->lock);
> sn = sp_lookup(sp, idx, idx+1);
> if (sn) {
> mpol_get(sn->policy);
> pol = sn->policy;
> }
> - mutex_unlock(&sp->mutex);
> + spin_unlock(&sp->lock);
> return pol;
> }
>
> @@ -2178,8 +2188,10 @@ static void sp_free(struct sp_node *n)
> static void sp_delete(struct shared_policy *sp, struct sp_node *n)
> {
> pr_debug("deleting %lx-l%lx\n", n->start, n->end);
> + spin_lock(&sp->lock);
> rb_erase(&n->nd, &sp->root);
> sp_free(n);
> + spin_unlock(&sp->lock);
> }
>
> static struct sp_node *sp_alloc(unsigned long start, unsigned long end,
> @@ -2264,6 +2276,7 @@ void mpol_shared_policy_init(struct shared_policy *sp, struct mempolicy *mpol)
> int ret;
>
> sp->root = RB_ROOT; /* empty tree == default mempolicy */
> + spin_lock_init(&sp->lock);
> mutex_init(&sp->mutex);
>
> if (mpol) {
--
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