[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20150812141644.ceb541e5b52d76049339a243@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 14:16:44 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>,
Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
Steve Capper <steve.capper@...aro.org>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: page-flags behavior on compound pages: a worry
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 17:35:09 +0300 "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 12:24:22PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > IIUC, the only potentially problematic callsites left are physical memory
> > > scanners. This code requires audit. I'll do that.
> >
> > Please.
>
> I haven't finished the exercise yet. But here's an issue I believe present
> in current *Linus* tree:
>
> >From e78eec7d7a8c4cba8b5952a997973f7741e704f4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 17:09:16 +0300
> Subject: [PATCH] mm: fix potential race in isolate_migratepages_block()
>
> Hugh has pointed that compound_head() call can be unsafe in some context.
> There's one example:
>
> CPU0 CPU1
>
> isolate_migratepages_block()
> page_count()
> compound_head()
> !!PageTail() == true
> put_page()
> tail->first_page = NULL
> head = tail->first_page
> alloc_pages(__GFP_COMP)
> prep_compound_page()
> tail->first_page = head
> __SetPageTail(p);
> !!PageTail() == true
> <head == NULL dereferencing>
>
> The race is pure theoretical. I don't it's possible to trigger it in
> practice. But who knows.
>
> This can be fixed by avoiding compound_head() in unsafe context.
This is nuts :( page_count() should Just Work without us having to
worry about bizarre races against splitting. Sigh.
> --- a/mm/compaction.c
> +++ b/mm/compaction.c
> @@ -787,7 +787,7 @@ isolate_migratepages_block(struct compact_control *cc, unsigned long low_pfn,
> * admittedly racy check.
> */
> if (!page_mapping(page) &&
> - page_count(page) > page_mapcount(page))
> + atomic_read(&page->_count) > page_mapcount(page))
> continue;
If we're going to do this sort of thing, can we please do it in a more
transparent manner? Let's not sprinkle unexplained and
incomprehensible direct accesses to ->_count all over the place.
Create a formal function to do this, with an appropriate name and with
documentation which fully explains what's going on. Then use that
here, and in has_unmovable_pages() (at least).
--
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