linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm: make start_isolate_page

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 2 Mar 2018 16:06:07 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
        Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>,
        Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm: make start_isolate_page_range() fail if already
 isolated

On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 11:10:54 -0800 Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com> wrote:

> start_isolate_page_range() is used to set the migrate type of a
> set of page blocks to MIGRATE_ISOLATE while attempting to start
> a migration operation.  It assumes that only one thread is
> calling it for the specified range.  This routine is used by
> CMA, memory hotplug and gigantic huge pages.  Each of these users
> synchronize access to the range within their subsystem.  However,
> two subsystems (CMA and gigantic huge pages for example) could
> attempt operations on the same range.  If this happens, page
> blocks may be incorrectly left marked as MIGRATE_ISOLATE and
> therefore not available for page allocation.
> 
> Without 'locking code' there is no easy way to synchronize access
> to the range of page blocks passed to start_isolate_page_range.
> However, if two threads are working on the same set of page blocks
> one will stumble upon blocks set to MIGRATE_ISOLATE by the other.
> In such conditions, make the thread noticing MIGRATE_ISOLATE
> clean up as normal and return -EBUSY to the caller.
> 
> This will allow start_isolate_page_range to serve as a
> synchronization mechanism and will allow for more general use
> of callers making use of these interfaces.  So, update comments
> in alloc_contig_range to reflect this new functionality.
> 
> ...
>
> --- a/mm/page_isolation.c
> +++ b/mm/page_isolation.c
> @@ -28,6 +28,13 @@ static int set_migratetype_isolate(struct page *page, int migratetype,
>  
>  	spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lock, flags);
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * We assume we are the only ones trying to isolate this block.
> +	 * If MIGRATE_ISOLATE already set, return -EBUSY
> +	 */
> +	if (is_migrate_isolate_page(page))
> +		goto out;
> +
>  	pfn = page_to_pfn(page);
>  	arg.start_pfn = pfn;
>  	arg.nr_pages = pageblock_nr_pages;

Seems a bit ugly and I'm not sure that it's correct.  If the loop in
start_isolate_page_range() gets partway through a number of pages then
we hit the race, start_isolate_page_range() will then go and "undo" the
work being done by the thread which it is racing against?

Even if that can't happen, blundering through a whole bunch of pages
then saying whoops then undoing everything is unpleasing.

Should we be looking at preventing these races at a higher level?