| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20150923132214.GC25020@node.dhcp.inet.fi>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 16:22:14 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Ebru Akagunduz <ebru.akagunduz@...il.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [linux-next] khugepaged inconsistent lock state
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 04:57:05PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 01:46:00PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > 4.3.0-rc1-next-20150918
> > >
> > > [18344.236625] =================================
> > > [18344.236628] [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ]
> > > [18344.236633] 4.3.0-rc1-next-20150918-dbg-00014-ge5128d0-dirty #361 Not tainted
> > > [18344.236636] ---------------------------------
> > > [18344.236640] inconsistent {IN-RECLAIM_FS-W} -> {RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} usage.
> > > [18344.236645] khugepaged/32 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes:
> > > [18344.236648] (&anon_vma->rwsem){++++?.}, at: [<ffffffff81134403>] khugepaged+0x8b0/0x1987
> > > [18344.236662] {IN-RECLAIM_FS-W} state was registered at:
> > > [18344.236666] [<ffffffff8107d747>] __lock_acquire+0x8e2/0x1183
> > > [18344.236673] [<ffffffff8107e7ac>] lock_acquire+0x10b/0x1a6
> > > [18344.236678] [<ffffffff8150a367>] down_write+0x3b/0x6a
> > > [18344.236686] [<ffffffff811360d8>] split_huge_page_to_list+0x5b/0x61f
> > > [18344.236689] [<ffffffff811224b3>] add_to_swap+0x37/0x78
> > > [18344.236691] [<ffffffff810fd650>] shrink_page_list+0x4c2/0xb9a
> > > [18344.236694] [<ffffffff810fe47c>] shrink_inactive_list+0x371/0x5d9
> > > [18344.236696] [<ffffffff810fee2f>] shrink_lruvec+0x410/0x5ae
> > > [18344.236698] [<ffffffff810ff024>] shrink_zone+0x57/0x140
> > > [18344.236700] [<ffffffff810ffc79>] kswapd+0x6a5/0x91b
> > > [18344.236702] [<ffffffff81059588>] kthread+0x107/0x10f
> > > [18344.236706] [<ffffffff8150c7bf>] ret_from_fork+0x3f/0x70
> > > [18344.236708] irq event stamp: 6517947
> > > [18344.236709] hardirqs last enabled at (6517947): [<ffffffff810f2d0c>] get_page_from_freelist+0x362/0x59e
> > > [18344.236713] hardirqs last disabled at (6517946): [<ffffffff8150ba41>] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x18/0x51
> > > [18344.236715] softirqs last enabled at (6507072): [<ffffffff81041cb0>] __do_softirq+0x2df/0x3f5
> > > [18344.236719] softirqs last disabled at (6507055): [<ffffffff81041fb5>] irq_exit+0x40/0x94
> > > [18344.236722]
> > > other info that might help us debug this:
> > > [18344.236723] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> > >
> > > [18344.236724] CPU0
> > > [18344.236725] ----
> > > [18344.236726] lock(&anon_vma->rwsem);
> > > [18344.236728] <Interrupt>
> > > [18344.236729] lock(&anon_vma->rwsem);
> > > [18344.236731]
> > > *** DEADLOCK ***
> > >
> > > [18344.236733] 2 locks held by khugepaged/32:
> > > [18344.236733] #0: (&mm->mmap_sem){++++++}, at: [<ffffffff81134122>] khugepaged+0x5cf/0x1987
> > > [18344.236738] #1: (&anon_vma->rwsem){++++?.}, at: [<ffffffff81134403>] khugepaged+0x8b0/0x1987
> > > [18344.236741]
> > > stack backtrace:
> > > [18344.236744] CPU: 3 PID: 32 Comm: khugepaged Not tainted 4.3.0-rc1-next-20150918-dbg-00014-ge5128d0-dirty #361
> > > [18344.236747] 0000000000000000 ffff880132827a00 ffffffff81230867 ffffffff8237ba90
> > > [18344.236750] ffff880132827a38 ffffffff810ea9b9 000000000000000a ffff8801333b52e0
> > > [18344.236753] ffff8801333b4c00 ffffffff8107b3ce 000000000000000a ffff880132827a78
> > > [18344.236755] Call Trace:
> > > [18344.236758] [<ffffffff81230867>] dump_stack+0x4e/0x79
> > > [18344.236761] [<ffffffff810ea9b9>] print_usage_bug.part.24+0x259/0x268
> > > [18344.236763] [<ffffffff8107b3ce>] ? print_shortest_lock_dependencies+0x180/0x180
> > > [18344.236765] [<ffffffff8107c7fc>] mark_lock+0x381/0x567
> > > [18344.236766] [<ffffffff8107ca40>] mark_held_locks+0x5e/0x74
> > > [18344.236768] [<ffffffff8107ee9f>] lockdep_trace_alloc+0xb0/0xb3
> > > [18344.236771] [<ffffffff810f30cc>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x99/0x856
> > > [18344.236772] [<ffffffff810ebaf9>] ? find_get_entry+0x14b/0x17a
> > > [18344.236774] [<ffffffff810ebb16>] ? find_get_entry+0x168/0x17a
> > > [18344.236777] [<ffffffff811226d9>] __read_swap_cache_async+0x7b/0x1aa
> > > [18344.236778] [<ffffffff8112281d>] read_swap_cache_async+0x15/0x2d
> > > [18344.236780] [<ffffffff8112294f>] swapin_readahead+0x11a/0x16a
> > > [18344.236783] [<ffffffff81112791>] do_swap_page+0xa7/0x36b
> > > [18344.236784] [<ffffffff81112791>] ? do_swap_page+0xa7/0x36b
> > > [18344.236787] [<ffffffff8113444c>] khugepaged+0x8f9/0x1987
> > > [18344.236790] [<ffffffff810772f3>] ? wait_woken+0x88/0x88
> > > [18344.236792] [<ffffffff81133b53>] ? maybe_pmd_mkwrite+0x1a/0x1a
> > > [18344.236794] [<ffffffff81059588>] kthread+0x107/0x10f
> > > [18344.236797] [<ffffffff81059481>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x1ea/0x1ea
> > > [18344.236799] [<ffffffff8150c7bf>] ret_from_fork+0x3f/0x70
> > > [18344.236801] [<ffffffff81059481>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x1ea/0x1ea
> >
> > Hm. If I read this correctly, we see following scenario:
> >
> > - khugepaged tries to swap in a page under mmap_sem and anon_vma lock;
> > - do_swap_page() calls swapin_readahead() with GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE;
> > - __read_swap_cache_async() tries to allocate the page for swap in;
> > - lockdep_trace_alloc() in __alloc_pages_nodemask() notices that with
> > given gfp_mask we could end up in direct relaim.
> > - Lockdep already knows that reclaim sometimes (e.g. in case of
> > split_huge_page()) wants to take anon_vma lock on its own.
> >
> > Therefore deadlock is possible.
>
> Oh, thank you for working that out. As usual with a lockdep trace,
> I knew it was telling me something important, but in a language I
> just couldn't understand without spending much longer to decode it.
> Yes, wrong to call do_swap_page() while holding anon_vma lock.
>
> >
> > I see two ways to fix this:
> >
> > - take anon_vma lock *after* __collapse_huge_page_swapin() in
> > collapse_huge_page(): I don't really see why we need the lock
> > during swapin;
>
> Agreed.
Okay. Patch for this is below.
Ebru, could you test it?
> > - respect FAULT_FLAG_RETRY_NOWAIT in do_swap_page(): add GFP_NOWAIT to
> > gfp_mask for swapin_readahead() in this case.
>
> Sounds like a good idea; though I have some reservations you're welcome
> to ignore. Partly because it goes beyond what's actually needed here,
> partly because there's going to be plenty of waiting while the swapin
> is done, partly because I think such a change may better belong to a
> larger effort, extending FAULT_FLAG_RETRY somehow to cover the memory
> allocation as well as the I/O phase (but we might be hoping instead for
> a deeper attack on mmap_sem which would make FAULT_FLAG_RETRY redundant).
I agree, we need something more coherent here, than what I wanted to do at
first. I don't have time for this :-/
Anyone?
> And the down_write of mmap_sem here, across all of those (63? 511?)
> swapins, worries me. Should the swapins be done higher up, under
> just a down_read of mmap_sem (required to guard vma)? Or should
> mmap_sem be dropped and retaken repeatedly, and the various things
> (including vma itself) be checked repeatedly? I don't know.
Ebru, would you willing to rework collapse_huge_page() to call
__collapse_huge_page_swapin() under down_read(mmap_sem)?
>From 6d5eba0e7be517b5c0ee1d5492737c17d02f5202 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 16:01:02 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] thp: do not hold anon_vma lock during swap in
khugepaged does swap in during collapse under anon_vma lock. It causes
complain from lockdep. The trace below shows following scenario:
- khugepaged tries to swap in a page under mmap_sem and anon_vma lock;
- do_swap_page() calls swapin_readahead() with GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE;
- __read_swap_cache_async() tries to allocate the page for swap in;
- lockdep_trace_alloc() in __alloc_pages_nodemask() notices that with
given gfp_mask we could end up in direct relaim.
- Lockdep already knows that reclaim sometimes (e.g. in case of
split_huge_page()) wants to take anon_vma lock on its own.
Therefore deadlock is possible.
The fix is to take anon_vma lock after swap in.
[18344.236625] =================================
[18344.236628] [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ]
[18344.236633] 4.3.0-rc1-next-20150918-dbg-00014-ge5128d0-dirty #361 Not tainted
[18344.236636] ---------------------------------
[18344.236640] inconsistent {IN-RECLAIM_FS-W} -> {RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} usage.
[18344.236645] khugepaged/32 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes:
[18344.236648] (&anon_vma->rwsem){++++?.}, at: [<ffffffff81134403>] khugepaged+0x8b0/0x1987
[18344.236662] {IN-RECLAIM_FS-W} state was registered at:
[18344.236666] [<ffffffff8107d747>] __lock_acquire+0x8e2/0x1183
[18344.236673] [<ffffffff8107e7ac>] lock_acquire+0x10b/0x1a6
[18344.236678] [<ffffffff8150a367>] down_write+0x3b/0x6a
[18344.236686] [<ffffffff811360d8>] split_huge_page_to_list+0x5b/0x61f
[18344.236689] [<ffffffff811224b3>] add_to_swap+0x37/0x78
[18344.236691] [<ffffffff810fd650>] shrink_page_list+0x4c2/0xb9a
[18344.236694] [<ffffffff810fe47c>] shrink_inactive_list+0x371/0x5d9
[18344.236696] [<ffffffff810fee2f>] shrink_lruvec+0x410/0x5ae
[18344.236698] [<ffffffff810ff024>] shrink_zone+0x57/0x140
[18344.236700] [<ffffffff810ffc79>] kswapd+0x6a5/0x91b
[18344.236702] [<ffffffff81059588>] kthread+0x107/0x10f
[18344.236706] [<ffffffff8150c7bf>] ret_from_fork+0x3f/0x70
[18344.236708] irq event stamp: 6517947
[18344.236709] hardirqs last enabled at (6517947): [<ffffffff810f2d0c>] get_page_from_freelist+0x362/0x59e
[18344.236713] hardirqs last disabled at (6517946): [<ffffffff8150ba41>] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x18/0x51
[18344.236715] softirqs last enabled at (6507072): [<ffffffff81041cb0>] __do_softirq+0x2df/0x3f5
[18344.236719] softirqs last disabled at (6507055): [<ffffffff81041fb5>] irq_exit+0x40/0x94
[18344.236722]
other info that might help us debug this:
[18344.236723] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[18344.236724] CPU0
[18344.236725] ----
[18344.236726] lock(&anon_vma->rwsem);
[18344.236728] <Interrupt>
[18344.236729] lock(&anon_vma->rwsem);
[18344.236731]
*** DEADLOCK ***
[18344.236733] 2 locks held by khugepaged/32:
[18344.236733] #0: (&mm->mmap_sem){++++++}, at: [<ffffffff81134122>] khugepaged+0x5cf/0x1987
[18344.236738] #1: (&anon_vma->rwsem){++++?.}, at: [<ffffffff81134403>] khugepaged+0x8b0/0x1987
[18344.236741]
stack backtrace:
[18344.236744] CPU: 3 PID: 32 Comm: khugepaged Not tainted 4.3.0-rc1-next-20150918-dbg-00014-ge5128d0-dirty #361
[18344.236747] 0000000000000000 ffff880132827a00 ffffffff81230867 ffffffff8237ba90
[18344.236750] ffff880132827a38 ffffffff810ea9b9 000000000000000a ffff8801333b52e0
[18344.236753] ffff8801333b4c00 ffffffff8107b3ce 000000000000000a ffff880132827a78
[18344.236755] Call Trace:
[18344.236758] [<ffffffff81230867>] dump_stack+0x4e/0x79
[18344.236761] [<ffffffff810ea9b9>] print_usage_bug.part.24+0x259/0x268
[18344.236763] [<ffffffff8107b3ce>] ? print_shortest_lock_dependencies+0x180/0x180
[18344.236765] [<ffffffff8107c7fc>] mark_lock+0x381/0x567
[18344.236766] [<ffffffff8107ca40>] mark_held_locks+0x5e/0x74
[18344.236768] [<ffffffff8107ee9f>] lockdep_trace_alloc+0xb0/0xb3
[18344.236771] [<ffffffff810f30cc>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x99/0x856
[18344.236772] [<ffffffff810ebaf9>] ? find_get_entry+0x14b/0x17a
[18344.236774] [<ffffffff810ebb16>] ? find_get_entry+0x168/0x17a
[18344.236777] [<ffffffff811226d9>] __read_swap_cache_async+0x7b/0x1aa
[18344.236778] [<ffffffff8112281d>] read_swap_cache_async+0x15/0x2d
[18344.236780] [<ffffffff8112294f>] swapin_readahead+0x11a/0x16a
[18344.236783] [<ffffffff81112791>] do_swap_page+0xa7/0x36b
[18344.236784] [<ffffffff81112791>] ? do_swap_page+0xa7/0x36b
[18344.236787] [<ffffffff8113444c>] khugepaged+0x8f9/0x1987
[18344.236790] [<ffffffff810772f3>] ? wait_woken+0x88/0x88
[18344.236792] [<ffffffff81133b53>] ? maybe_pmd_mkwrite+0x1a/0x1a
[18344.236794] [<ffffffff81059588>] kthread+0x107/0x10f
[18344.236797] [<ffffffff81059481>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x1ea/0x1ea
[18344.236799] [<ffffffff8150c7bf>] ret_from_fork+0x3f/0x70
[18344.236801] [<ffffffff81059481>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x1ea/0x1ea
Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Reported-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
---
mm/huge_memory.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
index dd58ecfcafe6..06c8f6d8fee2 100644
--- a/mm/huge_memory.c
+++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
@@ -2725,10 +2725,10 @@ static void collapse_huge_page(struct mm_struct *mm,
goto out;
}
- anon_vma_lock_write(vma->anon_vma);
-
__collapse_huge_page_swapin(mm, vma, address, pmd);
+ anon_vma_lock_write(vma->anon_vma);
+
pte = pte_offset_map(pmd, address);
pte_ptl = pte_lockptr(mm, pmd);
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
--
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