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  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]
Date:	Fri, 8 Aug 2014 15:30:51 +0900
From:	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
To:	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
	Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>,
	Zhang Yanfei <zhangyanfei@...fujitsu.com>,
	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>,
	Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
	Wen Congyang <wency@...fujitsu.com>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
	Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>,
	Laura Abbott <lauraa@...eaurora.org>,
	Heesub Shin <heesub.shin@...sung.com>,
	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.list@...il.com>,
	t.stanislaws@...sung.com, Gioh Kim <gioh.kim@....com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/8] mm/isolation: close the two race problems related
 to pageblock isolation

On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 04:34:41PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 08/06/2014 09:18 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >We got migratetype of the freeing page without holding the zone lock so
> >it could be racy. There are two cases of this race.
> >
> >1. pages are added to isolate buddy list after restoring original
> >migratetype.
> >2. pages are added to normal buddy list while pageblock is isolated.
> >
> >If case 1 happens, we can't allocate freepages on isolate buddy list
> >until next pageblock isolation occurs.
> >In case of 2, pages could be merged with pages on isolate buddy list and
> >located on normal buddy list. This makes freepage counting incorrect
> >and break the property of pageblock isolation.
> >
> >One solution to this problem is checking pageblock migratetype with
> >holding zone lock in __free_one_page() and I posted it before, but,
> >it didn't get welcome since it needs the hook in zone lock critical
> >section on freepath.
> >
> >This is another solution to this problem and impose most overhead on
> >pageblock isolation logic. Following is how this solution works.
> >
> >1. Extends irq disabled period on freepath to call
> >get_pfnblock_migratetype() with irq disabled. With this, we can be
> >sure that future freed pages will see modified pageblock migratetype
> >after certain synchronization point so we don't need to hold the zone
> >lock to get correct pageblock migratetype. Although it extends irq
> >disabled period on freepath, I guess it is marginal and better than
> >adding the hook in zone lock critical section.
> >
> >2. #1 requires IPI for synchronization and we can't hold the zone lock
> 
> It would be better to explain here that the synchronization point is
> pcplists draining.

Okay.

> 
> >during processing IPI. In this time, some pages could be moved from buddy
> >list to pcp list on page allocation path and later it could be moved again
> >from pcp list to buddy list. In this time, this page would be on isolate
> 
> It is difficult to understand the problem just by reading this. I
> guess the timelines you included while explaining the problem to me,
> would help here :)

Okay.

> >pageblock, so, the hook is required on free_pcppages_bulk() to prevent
> 
> More clearly, a recheck for pageblock's migratetype would be needed
> in free_pcppages_bulk(), which would again impose overhead outside
> isolation.

Thanks. I will replace above line with yours. :)

> >misplacement. To remove this possibility, disabling and draining pcp
> >list is needed during isolation. It guaratees that there is no page on pcp
> >list on all cpus while isolation, so misplacement problem can't happen.
> >
> >Note that this doesn't fix freepage counting problem. To fix it,
> >we need more logic. Following patches will do it.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
> >---
> >  mm/internal.h       |    2 ++
> >  mm/page_alloc.c     |   27 ++++++++++++++++++++-------
> >  mm/page_isolation.c |   45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> >  3 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/mm/internal.h b/mm/internal.h
> >index a1b651b..81b8884 100644
> >--- a/mm/internal.h
> >+++ b/mm/internal.h
> >@@ -108,6 +108,8 @@ extern pmd_t *mm_find_pmd(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long address);
> >  /*
> >   * in mm/page_alloc.c
> >   */
> >+extern void zone_pcp_disable(struct zone *zone);
> >+extern void zone_pcp_enable(struct zone *zone);
> >  extern void __free_pages_bootmem(struct page *page, unsigned int order);
> >  extern void prep_compound_page(struct page *page, unsigned long order);
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_FAILURE
> >diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> >index 3e1e344..4517b1d 100644
> >--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> >+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> >@@ -726,11 +726,7 @@ static void free_pcppages_bulk(struct zone *zone, int count,
> >  			/* MIGRATE_MOVABLE list may include MIGRATE_RESERVEs */
> >  			__free_one_page(page, page_to_pfn(page), zone, 0, mt);
> >  			trace_mm_page_pcpu_drain(page, 0, mt);
> >-			if (likely(!is_migrate_isolate_page(page))) {
> >-				__mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES, 1);
> >-				if (is_migrate_cma(mt))
> >-					__mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_FREE_CMA_PAGES, 1);
> >-			}
> >+			__mod_zone_freepage_state(zone, 1, mt);
> 
> Could be worth mentioning that this can now be removed as it was an
> incomplete attempt to fix freepage counting, but didn't address the
> misplacement.

Okay. I will mention it.

> >  		} while (--to_free && --batch_free && !list_empty(list));
> >  	}
> >  	spin_unlock(&zone->lock);
> >@@ -789,8 +785,8 @@ static void __free_pages_ok(struct page *page, unsigned int order)
> >  	if (!free_pages_prepare(page, order))
> >  		return;
> >
> >-	migratetype = get_pfnblock_migratetype(page, pfn);
> >  	local_irq_save(flags);
> >+	migratetype = get_pfnblock_migratetype(page, pfn);
> >  	__count_vm_events(PGFREE, 1 << order);
> >  	set_freepage_migratetype(page, migratetype);
> >  	free_one_page(page_zone(page), page, pfn, order, migratetype);
> >@@ -1410,9 +1406,9 @@ void free_hot_cold_page(struct page *page, bool cold)
> >  	if (!free_pages_prepare(page, 0))
> >  		return;
> >
> >+	local_irq_save(flags);
> >  	migratetype = get_pfnblock_migratetype(page, pfn);
> >  	set_freepage_migratetype(page, migratetype);
> >-	local_irq_save(flags);
> >  	__count_vm_event(PGFREE);
> 
> Maybe add comments to these two to make it clear that this cannot be
> moved outside of the irq disabled part, in case anyone considers it
> (again) in the future?

Okay.

> 
> >@@ -55,20 +56,32 @@ int set_migratetype_isolate(struct page *page, bool skip_hwpoisoned_pages)
> >  	 */
> >
> >  out:
> >-	if (!ret) {
> >-		unsigned long nr_pages;
> >-		int migratetype = get_pageblock_migratetype(page);
> >+	if (ret) {
> >+		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&zone->lock, flags);
> >+		return ret;
> >+	}
> >  on pcplists
> >-		set_pageblock_migratetype(page, MIGRATE_ISOLATE);
> >-		nr_pages = move_freepages_block(zone, page, MIGRATE_ISOLATE);
> >+	migratetype = get_pageblock_migratetype(page);
> >+	set_pageblock_migratetype(page, MIGRATE_ISOLATE);
> >+	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&zone->lock, flags);
> >
> >-		__mod_zone_freepage_state(zone, -nr_pages, migratetype);
> >-	}
> >+	zone_pcp_disable(zone);
> >+
> >+	/*
> >+	 * After this point, freed pages will see MIGRATE_ISOLATE as
> >+	 * their pageblock migratetype on all cpus. And pcp list has
> >+	 * no free page.
> >+	 */
> >+	on_each_cpu(drain_local_pages, NULL, 1);
> 
> Is there any difference between drain_all_pages() and this, or why
> didn't you use drain_all_pages()?

Yes, there is some difference. What we need here is not only to drain
pages on pcplist but also to synchronize memory on every CPUs. Because
drain_all_pages() send IPI only to CPUs having pages on pcplist, we
cannot be sure that all CPUs are synchronized. So I do it in this way.

Thanks.
--
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