linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 0/6] mm: online/offline_pages called w.o. mem_hotplug

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]

Message-ID: <20180919012207.GD8537@350D>
Date:   Wed, 19 Sep 2018 11:22:07 +1000
From:   Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
        devel@...uxdriverproject.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        John Allen <jallen@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
        Mathieu Malaterre <malat@...ian.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Nathan Fontenot <nfont@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pavel.tatashin@...rosoft.com>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Rashmica Gupta <rashmica.g@...il.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        YASUAKI ISHIMATSU <yasu.isimatu@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/6] mm: online/offline_pages called w.o.
 mem_hotplug_lock

On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 01:48:16PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> Reading through the code and studying how mem_hotplug_lock is to be used,
> I noticed that there are two places where we can end up calling
> device_online()/device_offline() - online_pages()/offline_pages() without
> the mem_hotplug_lock. And there are other places where we call
> device_online()/device_offline() without the device_hotplug_lock.
> 
> While e.g.
> 	echo "online" > /sys/devices/system/memory/memory9/state
> is fine, e.g.
> 	echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/memory/memory9/online
> Will not take the mem_hotplug_lock. However the device_lock() and
> device_hotplug_lock.
> 
> E.g. via memory_probe_store(), we can end up calling
> add_memory()->online_pages() without the device_hotplug_lock. So we can
> have concurrent callers in online_pages(). We e.g. touch in online_pages()
> basically unprotected zone->present_pages then.
> 
> Looks like there is a longer history to that (see Patch #2 for details),
> and fixing it to work the way it was intended is not really possible. We
> would e.g. have to take the mem_hotplug_lock in device/base/core.c, which
> sounds wrong.
> 
> Summary: We had a lock inversion on mem_hotplug_lock and device_lock().
> More details can be found in patch 3 and patch 6.
> 
> I propose the general rules (documentation added in patch 6):
> 
> 1. add_memory/add_memory_resource() must only be called with
>    device_hotplug_lock.
> 2. remove_memory() must only be called with device_hotplug_lock. This is
>    already documented and holds for all callers.
> 3. device_online()/device_offline() must only be called with
>    device_hotplug_lock. This is already documented and true for now in core
>    code. Other callers (related to memory hotplug) have to be fixed up.
> 4. mem_hotplug_lock is taken inside of add_memory/remove_memory/
>    online_pages/offline_pages.
> 
> To me, this looks way cleaner than what we have right now (and easier to
> verify). And looking at the documentation of remove_memory, using
> lock_device_hotplug also for add_memory() feels natural.
>

That seems reasonable, but also implies that device_online() would hold
back add/remove memory, could you please also document what mode
read/write the locks need to be held? For example can the device_hotplug_lock
be held in read mode while add/remove memory via (mem_hotplug_lock) is held
in write mode?

Balbir Singh.