[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130416112553.GM3658@sgi.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 06:25:53 -0500
From: Robin Holt <holt@....com>
To: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Robin Holt <holt@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
Avi Kivity <avi.kivity@...il.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: mmu_notifier: re-fix freed page still mapped in
secondary MMU
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 06:26:36PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> On 04/16/2013 05:31 PM, Robin Holt wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 02:39:49PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> >> The commit 751efd8610d3 (mmu_notifier_unregister NULL Pointer deref
> >> and multiple ->release()) breaks the fix:
> >> 3ad3d901bbcfb15a5e4690e55350db0899095a68
> >> (mm: mmu_notifier: fix freed page still mapped in secondary MMU)
> >
> > Can you describe how the page is still mapped? I thought I had all
> > cases covered. Whichever call hits first, I thought we had one callout
> > to the registered notifiers. Are you saying we need multiple callouts?
>
> No.
>
> You patch did this:
>
> hlist_del_init_rcu(&mn->hlist); 1 <======
> + spin_unlock(&mm->mmu_notifier_mm->lock);
> +
> + /*
> + * Clear sptes. (see 'release' description in mmu_notifier.h)
> + */
> + if (mn->ops->release)
> + mn->ops->release(mn, mm); 2 <======
> +
> + spin_lock(&mm->mmu_notifier_mm->lock);
>
> At point 1, you delete the notify, but the page is still on LRU. Other
> cpu can reclaim the page but without call ->invalid_page().
>
> At point 2, you call ->release(), the secondary MMU make page Accessed/Dirty
> but that page has already been on the free-list of page-alloctor.
That expectation on srcu _REALLY_ needs to be documented better.
Maybe I missed it in the comments, but there is an expectation beyond
the synchronize_srcu(). This code has been extremely poorly described
and I think it is time we fix that up.
I do see that in comments for mmu_notifier_unregister, there is an
expectation upon already having all the spte's removed prior to making
this call. I think that is also a stale comment as it mentions a lock
which I am not sure ever really existed.
> > Also, shouldn't you be asking for a revert commit and then supply a
> > subsequent commit for the real fix? I thought that was the process for
> > doing a revert.
>
> Can not do that pure reversion since your patch moved hlist_for_each_entry_rcu
> which has been modified now.
>
> Should i do pure-eversion + hlist_for_each_entry_rcu update first?
Let's not go off without considering this first.
It looks like what we really need to do is ensure there is a method
for ensuring that the mmu_notifier remains on the list while callouts
invalidate_page() callouts are being made and also a means of ensuring
that only one ->release() callout is made.
First, is it the case that when kvm calls mmu_notifier_unregister(),
it has already cleared the spte's? (what does spte stand for anyway)?
If so, then we really need to close the hole in __mmu_notifier_release().
I think we would need to modify code in both _unregister and _release,
but the issue is really _release.
I need to get ready and drive into work. If you want to float something
out there, that is fine. Otherwise, I will try to work something up
when I get to the office.
Thanks,
Robin
--
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