[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <533C081D.9050202@mellanox.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 15:52:45 +0300
From: Haggai Eran <haggaie@...lanox.com>
To: Jerome Glisse <j.glisse@...il.com>
CC: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Mike Rapoport <mike.rapoport@...ellosystems.com>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Izik Eidus <izik.eidus@...ellosystems.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
Sagi Grimberg <sagig@...lanox.com>,
Shachar Raindel <raindel@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/mmu_notifier: restore set_pte_at_notify semantics
On 03/30/2014 11:33 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 04:01:15PM +0200, Haggai Eran wrote:
>> I'm worried about the following scenario:
>>
>> Given a read-only page, suppose one host thread (thread 1) writes to
>> that page, and performs COW, but before it calls the
>> mmu_notifier_invalidate_page_if_missing_change_pte function another host
>> thread (thread 2) writes to the same page (this time without a page
>> fault). Then we have a valid entry in the secondary page table to a
>> stale page, and someone (thread 3) may read stale data from there.
>>
>> Here's a diagram that shows this scenario:
>>
>> Thread 1 | Thread 2 | Thread 3
>> ========================================================================
>> do_wp_page(page 1) | |
>> ... | |
>> set_pte_at_notify | |
>> ... | write to page 1 |
>> | | stale access
>> pte_unmap_unlock | |
>> invalidate_page_if_missing_change_pte | |
>>
>> This is currently prevented by the use of the range start and range end
>> notifiers.
>>
>> Do you agree that this scenario is possible with the new patch, or am I
>> missing something?
>>
> I believe you are right, but of all the upstream user of the mmu_notifier
> API only xen would suffer from this ie any user that do not have a proper
> change_pte callback can see the bogus scenario you describe above.
Yes. I sent our RDMA paging RFC patch-set on linux-rdma [1] last month,
and it would also suffer from this scenario, but it's not upstream yet.
> The issue i see is with user that want to/or might sleep when they are
> invalidation the secondary page table. The issue being that change_pte is
> call with the cpu page table locked (well at least for the affected pmd).
>
> I would rather keep the invalidate_range_start/end bracket around change_pte
> and invalidate page. I think we can fix the kvm regression by other means.
Perhaps another possibility would be to do the
invalidate_range_start/end bracket only when the mmu_notifier is missing
a change_pte implementation.
Best regards,
Haggai
[1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-rdma/msg18906.html
--
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